Is Bush policy Trotskyist?

[Ferryman 5]

Has anyone been keeping up to speed with this debate? I came across this while looking for information about CIA infiltration of the Media.
The CIA infiltrating the Left?Peter Myers, January 15, 2003; update May 24, 2007. My comments are shown {thus}; write to me at mailto:[email protected] ([email protected]).


http://hnn.us/articles/1530.html (http://hnn.us/articles/1530.html)


Last week HNN published Alan Wald's critique (http://hnn.us/articles/1514.html) of an article written by Michael Lind for the New Statesman in which Mr. Lind argued that defense policy in the Bush administration is orchestrated by a group of people, many of whom are Jewish, who were allegedly shaped by Trotskyism. This week we publish an exchange between Mr. Lind and Mr. Wald. Below is Mr. Lind's statement. Click here (http://hnn.us/articles/1536.html)for Mr. Wald's.

[YKTMX]

Lind's arguments are totally silly. The "democratic revolution" is to be pushed through by the organized working class, as a prelude to the communist revolution. As far I know, the U.S Marine Corps. is not an agent of the international working class, nor is Paul Wolfowitz calling for a "communist" solution in Iraq.

The fact that a few of the neo-cons are former fellow travellers of the American Trotskyist movement just shows how many strange splits and fissures that particular movements has gone through.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I read various articles on the Trot origins of neo-conservatism, and while I realize that said origins aren't representative of the whole Trot movement, that was one of the lesser reasons for me to turn myself off from Trotskyist revisionism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/revisionist-trotskyism-revolutionary-t70170/index.html) and turn briefly towards "Marxism-Leninism." :(

And while I can respect REAL Trots (at least those who are TRYING to get past typical Trotskyist sectarianism), I won't hesitate to use the "Marxist-Leninist" epithet "Trotskyite-fascist wrecker" when shouting at neocons. :)



In terms of the original question: The neocon policy (not the compromise Bush policy) isn't Trotskyist.

[Ferryman 5]

The fact that a few of the neo-cons are former fellow travellers of the American Trotskyist movement just shows how many strange splits and fissures that particular movements has gone through.

There dose appear to be some shared interests between Trotskyism and US foreign policy in relation ‘anti-terror’ campaigning. Also, the financial aid given by western governments and the Vatican to the Polish ‘Solidarity’ movement to destabilise that state, was matched by political support from most Trotskyist groups. And George Orwell, author of the ‘Animal Farm’ book, which has played such a central role in anti-communist brain washing throughout the British education system, has also been widely regarded as a Trotskyist sympathiser.

“Orwell was himself to describe Animal Farm as Trotskyist 'in the wide sense' and this seems a useful description of much of his political writing. Why is this either played down or ignored in most accounts of Orwell's work? Put quite simply, it is not acceptable that such an important literary figure should have such connections.”
Newsinger George Orwell The Chestnut Tree

"The most thorough history has recently appeared: Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War (Granta), by Frances Stonor Saunders. Aside from offering a vigorously researched account of these remarkable events, she delivers great lashings of gossip, some of which may fall into the too-good-to-be-true category. She tells us, for instance, that the CIA acquired the right to make George Orwell's Animal Farm into a film by promising his widow an introduction to Clark Gable." mailto:[email protected] ([email protected]).

EDIT: BTW Orwell was a snooping nark who passed on the names of communist or soviet sympathises to the Brit secret service.

[Andy Bowden]

Is Bush policy Trotskyist?

Yes.

In fact if often came into conflict with the UK's Stalinist foreign policy, given that Jack Straw was a former CP member and still likes to brag about it (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20041123/ai_n12823110).

:lol:

Back in the real world, most Trotskyist groups in the west directed their fire mainly on Reagan/Thatcher, in terms of propaganda, demos etc during the time in which the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc existed.

[Ferryman 5]

Yes.

In fact if often came into conflict with the UK's Stalinist foreign policy, given that Jack Straw was a former CP member and still likes to brag about it (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20041123/ai_n12823110).

:lol:

Back in the real world, most Trotskyist groups in the west directed their fire mainly on Reagan/Thatcher, in terms of propaganda, demos etc during the time in which the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc existed.

What?

[Andy Bowden]

Jack Straw was a Stalinist, and still doesn't see it as something to be particularly ashamed of given his letter to the Independent newspaper. Yet the UK's foreign policy is clearly not 'Stalinist'.

The same goes for the Neo-Cons who used to be Trotskyists.

And Trotskyist groups did not act as a propaganda wing for Reagan and Thatcher against the Soviet Union.

The majority of the propaganda and action of the major Trotskyist organisations was directed against Reagan/Thatcher, though they did not recognise the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc circa 80's as Socialist states.

A position vindicated when said regimes were overthrown primarily from the class that supposedly ruled them.

[Ferryman 5]

BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID! NO IF'S OR BUTS OBOUT IT. JUST CREEPIMG SCABS.

Without Trotskyist supporot, Brit and US imperialism would have been incapabll of sustaining its phony 'workers democratic' catholic imperialist attack on the real if flawed Polish workers state, 'deformed' or otherwuise.

[Ferryman 5]

And Trotskyist groups did not act as a propaganda wing for Reagan and Thatcher against the Soviet Union.


OK, I take you at you word for the moment and pretend that Trotskyism is something other than an anti-communist counter revolutionary stunt.

Now tell us how Troskyism has moved the revolution forward against mperialism.

[chegitz guevara]

grow up

[AGITprop]

grow up
Seconded.

[RedHal]

Look at the make up and support of most Trotskyists groups, it's easy to see why there are plenty of high profile ex trotskyists who turn to the far right.

[AGITprop]

Look at the make up and support of most Trotskyists groups, it's easy to see why there are plenty of high profile ex trotskyists who turn to the far right.
What exactly is the make up and support of most Trotskyist groups? Please elaborate as I'm curious to know.

[Ferryman 5]

The floor is yours gentlemen. Explain: "Now tell us how Troskyism has moved the revolution forward against imperialism."

This should be easy for you.

[AGITprop]

Explain how anyone has yet to move the revolution forward against imperialism. Your empty argument against Trotskyism is that it hasn't succeeded yet, therefore it is useless. Then again, communism has never succeeded either. Should we denounce it as well?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Once again: Revisionist Trotskyism or revolutionary Marxism? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/revisionist-trotskyism-revolutionary-t70170/index.html)

[Ferryman 5]

Once again: Revisionist Trotskyism or revolutionary Marxism? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/revisionist-trotskyism-revolutionary-t70170/index.html)

Jacob

Thanks for that. I am going to have to hang it on my wall and look at it for a while if you know what I mean. Anyway, congratulations on the way you jumped on this thread and unpacked your stuff. Excellent intervention!

Gunther

"Explain how anyone has yet to move the revolution forward against imperialism. Your empty argument against Trotskyism is that it hasn't succeeded yet, therefore it is useless. Then again, communism has never succeeded either. Should we denounce it as well? "


This is exactly my argument. Troskyism dose denounce communism because you think "communism has never succeeded." Trotskyism like all reactionary conservatism dose not recognise the use or even the existence of the world revolutionary movement and whenever a fight breaks out it joins in with conservatism to denounce the revolution as "useless".

Just look at your own paragraph to see the dead end pessimism it expresses. You obviously think that Marx and Lenin together with millions of workers have wasted their time or worse. Which is exactly what the mainstream conservatism says.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I don't go as far as you, though. :confused:

I'm an "orthodox Leninist" who doesn't subscribe to the spinoffs:

"Marxism-Leninism": anti-Leninist, reductionist, and grossly revisionist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxism-leninism-anti-t73258/index.html)

[chegitz guevara]

Look at the make up and support of most Trotskyists groups, it's easy to see why there are plenty of high profile ex trotskyists who turn to the far right.

As opposed to all the ex-Stalinists and ex-Maoists? David Horowitz, Hmmmm. And then there's China.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I didn't know Horowitz wasn't a Trot at one point. :confused:

Nevertheless, yeah the anti-Trot rant of the OP is baseless.

[chegitz guevara]

He was close to Issac Dueter, but his political activity centered around Ramparts and the Black Panthers.

[Ferryman 5]

^^^ I don't go as far as you, though. :confused:

I'm an "orthodox Leninist" who doesn't subscribe to the spinoffs:

"Marxism-Leninism": anti-Leninist, reductionist, and grossly revisionist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxism-leninism-anti-t73258/index.html)

Its not a matter of "subscribing to them" its a matter recognising the spontaneous, less than fully conscious, even very conservative or primitive striving of people can best be addressed by getting among them with Leninist science. Denouncing movements dose nothing except damage to anti-imperialist struggle which are the 'constituencies' for Marxism-Leninism.

Trotskists and conservatives appear to share an idealised understanding about how the world should be, about how it should fit into their schemes rather than acting on the world as it actually is. The Trotskyist refusal to admit that they do in fact side with imperialism when they condemn the enemies of imperialism only compounds the problem of clarifying theory in the working class.

[Magdalen]

Whatever we may think of Trotskyites' specific views on certain issues, we must admit that the majority of them are generally on the side of social justice around the world.

Bush and his cronies are all fascists, determined to suppress the Iraqi and Afghan peoples' democratic will by installing puppet government as right-wing as themselves.

[Luís Henrique]

The floor is yours gentlemen. Explain: "Now tell us how Troskyism has moved the revolution forward against imperialism."

This should be easy for you.

Your disjunctive is absurd. Indeed, a classic example of the "third excluded" fallacy.

It is quite well possible that Trotskyism has not moved the revolution forward... and that it has nothing to do with Bush's policies.

Or do you think that Manchester United, or the Palermo Philarmonic Orchestra, that also didn't move the revolution forward, are responsible for Bush's policies?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

As opposed to all the ex-Stalinists and ex-Maoists? David Horowitz, Hmmmm. And then there's China.

In fact, a lot of "nouveaux philosophes" were just plain old maoists.

Luís Henrique

[Partisano]

??

OK, I take you at you word for the moment and pretend that Trotskyism is something other than an anti-communist counter revolutionary stunt.

Now tell us how Troskyism has moved the revolution forward against mperialism.

[Andy Bowden]

Scottish Militant Labour was an explicitly Trotskyist organisation that organised people in working class communities against the poll tax, in a campaign which resulted in Thatcher being driven from office.

Thats what Trotskyists have done for revolution, in my own country. A hell of a lot more than Stalinists, who at present either try to reclaim the Labour Party or act as a defence for the Moscow Trials 70 years on.

[Ferryman 5]

Your disjunctive is absurd. Indeed, a classic example of the "third excluded" fallacy.

It is quite well possible that Trotskyism has not moved the revolution forward... and that it has nothing to do with Bush's policies.

Or do you think that Manchester United, or the Palermo Philarmonic Orchestra, that also didn't move the revolution forward, are responsible for Bush's policies?Luís Henrique

If these two institutions made the same political attacks on China, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas etc as the Bush gang do with their in house Trotskyist mentors. Then I would say so. As you know, Man United and the Palermo Phil do not aim a stream of denunciations at the enemies of imperialism, which makes them less reactionary than the average Trotskyist group. Your argument is silly 'flee cracking.' I didn't invite you to put your best case forward out of a sense of fair play, I did it because it is important to demonstrate that, for all the years of fire and fury of factional backstabbing, all the infiltration of academic institutions, the meadia, Labour Parties and Unions, you would not be able to point to any significant achievements other than as shadowy figures around one of the most reactionary US governments this century.

I invited you to give it 'your best shot' and this is all you could come up with >

Scottish Militant Labour was an explicitly Trotskyist organisation that organised people in working class communities against the poll tax, in a campaign which resulted in Thatcher being driven from office.

Thats what Trotskyists have done for revolution, in my own country. A hell of a lot more than Stalinists, who at present either try to reclaim the Labour Party or act as a defence for the Moscow Trials 70 years on.

Your not claiming credit for driving Thatcher out of office, are you? Because if you are you might as well take credit for Trotskyism getting New Labour elected while your at it.

What you should really be boasting about of course is the role all trotskyist groups played in rallying support for the reactionary Polish 'Solidarity' party exactly in line with imperialist policy and the revanchist theocratic ambitions of the Vatican.

[Andy Bowden]

Your not claiming credit for driving Thatcher out of office, are you? Because if you are you might as well take credit for Trotskyism getting New Labour elected while your at it.

Thatcher left office primarily due to the pressure she faced from a mass anti-poll tax campaign, initiated by SML. Its probable she would have been forced out later, considering the poll tax was so unfair and unworkable.

But the likelihood is without the non-payment campaign she would have hung on much longer.

Quite how Trotskyism got New Labour into power is anyones guess, considering by 1997 the majority of Trotskyists had left the Labour Party and were standing under their own banner - the SSP in Scotland and the SA in England for example.


what you should really be boasting about of course is the role all trotskyist groups played in rallying support for the reactionary Polish 'Solidarity' party exactly in line with imperialist policy and the revanchist theocratic ambitions of the Vatican.

Solidarity would never have recieved the popular backing from Polish workers if it had not been for the attacks on their conditions from the Stalinist bueracracy.

Stalinism bears direct responsibility for driving the mass of Polish workers into Solidaritys hands.

[chegitz guevara]

Trotskists and conservatives appear to share an idealised understanding about how the world should be, about how it should fit into their schemes rather than acting on the world as it actually is. The Trotskyist refusal to admit that they do in fact side with imperialism when they condemn the enemies of imperialism only compounds the problem of clarifying theory in the working class.

OMG, and Trots and Conservatives also breathe air. I think you may be on to something. We both drink milk. We both like sunshine. We're both human. Amazing.

Hmmm, I think I have detected a flaw in your theory. Everyone has an idealized understanding about how the world should be. In fact, at a certain, basic level, we all share the same vision: people should be happy and free. It's the little niggling details where we differ, like, what makes people happy, what makes people free, and how do we get there. Conservatives believe in capitalism, Trots don't.

Frankly, this Trotskyists support imperialism stuff is utter trash and you know it. Trots may not fully embrace each and every revolution, but neither do Maoists. After all, wasn't it Mao who decided to open up to the U.S. and side with the imperialists against the "social imperialists" of the USSR? Do you support the Cuban revolution? Or Bolivia or Venezuela?

It is definitely true that Trotskyists are a hell of a lot more picky about what they believe to be actual revolutions (and it is a major reason I'm a post-Trotskyist). Trots, however, are knee-jerkingly anti-imperialist. No Trotskyist has ever supported an imperialist adventure, so far as I'm aware (Burnham and Shckman don't count, as they were Ex-Trots by that time, and many ex-Stalinists have taken that path . . . like Ronald Reagan).

So kindly drop the BS arguments against Trotskyism. There are real arguments that are far more valid: sectarianism and formalism the two big ones. Of course, those arguments are also valid against almost every other brand of Marxism, so I doubt you'll go there.

[Ferryman 5]

OMG, and Trots and Conservatives also breathe air. I think you may be on to something. We both drink milk. We both like sunshine. We're both human. ...

And both refuse, point blank, to lay the responsibility for the riots in Tibet a door of imperialist provocateurs namely the CIA. Your main Trotskyist 'anchors' on the site are doing cartwheels trying to avoid saying that all this is part of a well planed imperialist stunt. It's criminal is what it is.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

A hell of a lot more than Stalinists,

There's no such philosophy.

[chegitz guevara]

And both refuse, point blank, to lay the responsibility for the riots in Tibet a door of imperialist provocateurs namely the CIA. Your main Trotskyist 'anchors' on the site are doing cartwheels trying to avoid saying that all this is part of a well planed imperialist stunt. It's criminal is what it is.

Really? You have evidence to support your assertion?

[Devrim]

Thatcher left office primarily due to the pressure she faced from a mass anti-poll tax campaign, initiated by SML.

This is actually a bit of leftist mythology. Thatcher left office primarily due to splits in her party over Europe. There were other things that helped her on her way, and the poll tax was one of them.

Devrim

[Andy Bowden]

I think your misjudging the room for manouevre the average Tory party member would have had over Europe in relation to keeping someone they adored like Thatcher onside.

Trying to bring down Thatcher over an issue as dry to the public, and obscure, as the EU would not in my opinion, have won enough support in the Tory party.

Especially when you consider that it would probably not have been looked upon as wise by the Tories base vote, who adored Thatcher.

Im not saying it was totally irrelevant, but the Poll Tax was described by Thatcher as the "flagship". It was intimately connected to her, from the perspective of bourgeois politics it would have been very difficult for the Tories to ditch the tax without either ditching Thatcher or totally undermining any authority and crediblity she had.

[Devrim]

She wasn't brought down by the 'average Tory party member'. She was bought down by the leadership. It didn't need to win 'support in the Tory party'. It was obviously looked upon as 'wise' enough by the Tory base. They did after all win the next election.

I am not saying that the poll tax was irrelevant. However, the line of 'the poll tax brought down Thatcher', which I have only ever heard from leftists, and more particular supporters of the descendants of militant, is blatant dishonesty.

Devrim

[Andy Bowden]

However, the line of 'the poll tax brought down Thatcher', which I have only ever heard from leftists

And where have you heard the line of "Thatcher was brought down by Europe" from?

[Devrim]

And where have you heard the line of "Thatcher was brought down by Europe" from?

I was working in London at the time. I remember it all happening.

Devrim

[Luís Henrique]

Some of Bush's advisors are ex-Trotskyists, yes. The precondition of their teaming with Bush relies in the particle "ex-". No Trotskyists would work with Bush, and Bush would not accept any Trotskyist working for him.

Evidently, some of the external features of Trotskyism may have been carried with those people when they flip-flopped. Had Hitler converted to Hasidic Judaism, he would quite certainly have been still a particularly authoritarian and reactionary Hasidic Jew - buth this wouldn't have made Hasidic Judaism "hitlerist" in any meaningful sence. As well, Sarkozy's policies aren't Maoists, though I'm quite sure he has ex-Maoists among his supporters. Again, the operational clause is the "ex-".

Luís Henrique

[Hit The North]

I am not saying that the poll tax was irrelevant. However, the line of 'the poll tax brought down Thatcher', which I have only ever heard from leftists, and more particular supporters of the descendants of militant, is blatant dishonesty.

The impact of the Poll Tax went beyond the impact of the massive protest, which simply dramatised the wider discontent.* Thatcher had done a good job of winning fractional support amongst the working class through council house sales and support amongst the petite-bourgeoisie with the illusion of a share-owning democracy and deregulated credit regimes and the Poll Tax jeopardized all that good will. The Tax was also pushed through by the Thatcher clique against the political judgment of over half the Cabinet and most of the backbenchers who fancied that they would lose their seats in the next election.

This was a serious body blow to the confidence the Parliamentary Party had for Thatcher. Nevertheless, Devrim is correct to state that it was her increasingly odd policy in Europe which provided the fatal blow.

* Having said that, the London Protest was a great day, after a decade of getting our arses kicked by the pigs in the Steel Strike, Miners Strike and Wapping, to finally see them on the run :cool:. It was an unexpected victory on the streets at the end of a decade where we'd known little else but retreat, so I don't blame the Left for romanticizing it.

[Zurdito]

Has anyone been keeping up to speed with this debate? I came across this while looking for information about CIA infiltration of the Media.
The CIA infiltrating the Left?Peter Myers, January 15, 2003; update May 24, 2007. My comments are shown {thus}; write to me at mailto:[email protected] ([email protected]).


http://hnn.us/articles/1530.html (http://hnn.us/articles/1530.html)


Last week HNN published Alan Wald's critique (http://hnn.us/articles/1514.html) of an article written by Michael Lind for the New Statesman in which Mr. Lind argued that defense policy in the Bush administration is orchestrated by a group of people, many of whom are Jewish, who were allegedly shaped by Trotskyism. This week we publish an exchange between Mr. Lind and Mr. Wald. Below is Mr. Lind's statement. Click here (http://hnn.us/articles/1536.html)for Mr. Wald's.

the trotskyite jews are running the White House? hmmm, where have I heard that kind of thing before?:rolleyes:

it's actually well known that a few neo-cons used to be trotskyist, and that many neo-cons are Jewish. In fact many facts can even be found on the Wikipedia entry on neo-conservatism, and have been up there for at least a year, so this isn't news.

However to elevate this to the level of the defining feature of neoconservatism is an idealistic cum conspiracy theorist pile of shit. American foreign policy is decided by the economic interest of the dominant sectors of their bourgeoisie, not by Jewish neo-con academics.

[F9]

NOOO idiot AND trotskyist?Run for you lifes!:laugh:

[Devrim]

* Having said that, the London Protest was a great day, after a decade of getting our arses kicked by the pigs in the Steel Strike, Miners Strike and Wapping, to finally see them on the run :cool:. It was an unexpected victory on the streets at the end of a decade where we'd known little else but retreat, so I don't blame the Left for romanticizing it.

I don't think that it is right though to lie to the working class. A little romanticism, yes, but outright lies, no.

I don't think that Andy Bowden on this thread is deliberately lying. I get the impression that he is younger than us, wasn't there at the time, and is just repeating what he has heard.

Devrim

[Andy Bowden]

You are correct that I wasn't around at the time. Im basing my opinion on what I think caused Thatcher to resign, and I think the poll tax was worse than the Europe dispute.

I agree with Citizen Zero when he talks about how Thatcher could buy off/fool a certain layer of workers, who turned against her when the poll tax was introduced.

Devrim, the fact you worked in London doesn't mean you (or I) had access to the Tory leaderships reason why they dumped her. Do you have any statements, memoirs etc of leading Tories placing Europe over the poll tax as being more damaging to their party?

[Devrim]

Devrim, the fact you worked in London doesn't mean you (or I) had access to the Tory leaderships reason why they dumped her. Do you have any statements, memoirs etc of leading Tories placing Europe over the poll tax as being more damaging to their party?

No, it doesn't give me any special insight. It does mean though that I was aware of what was going on at the time, and how it was being discussed. It was very clear what was happening. Citizen Zero above agreed with me:


Nevertheless, Devrim is correct to state that it was her increasingly odd policy in Europe which provided the fatal blow.

I wouldn't say Wiki is the most reliable source, but:


The event normally seen as the 'final straw' in the run-up to the contest is the resignation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resignation) of the Deputy Prime Minister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deputy_Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom), Sir Geoffrey Howe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Howe), on 1 November (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_1). This was a response to comments by Thatcher in the House of Commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_House_of_Commons) on 31 October (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_31), when she criticised the vision of European integration espoused by the European Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission) under Jacques Delors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Delors), characterising it as the path to a federal European superstate, and famously declared that her response to such a vision would be "No. No. No".

It also mentions the poll tax. I agree that the poll tax was part of it as I stated earlier. However, I don't agree with this line that the anti-poll tax movement bought down Thatcher.


You are correct that I wasn't around at the time. Im basing my opinion on what I think caused Thatcher to resign, and I think the poll tax was worse than the Europe dispute.

Why? Because the Militant and its political descendants said so? I think that their approach to it is fundamentally deliberately politically dishonest (nb I am not accusing you of personal dishonesty in anyway. I think you believe what you are saying).

Please give a reason for your opinion.

Devrim

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Since when did Wilsonian translate into Trotskyist?

[Andy Bowden]

Please give a reason for your opinion.

Because I think one million Scots (I think about a fifth of the population of Scotland at that time) refusing to pay taxes is more of a challenge to the government and Thatcher than an internal debate in the Tory party about Europe.

I accept that that may have been the "final straw" but I think it was the poll tax and the damage she did to her own party that paved the way for her to be dumped.

And I don't think Militant was "fundamentally politically dishonest" on this issue. I think the words you are looking for is "I disagree with them over the impact of the non-payment campaign".

[Devrim]

And I don't think Militant was "fundamentally politically dishonest" on this issue. I think the words you are looking for is "I disagree with them over the impact of the non-payment campaign".

I don't think they are the words I was looking for. What I meant was 'fundamentally politically dishonest'. The leading lights of the militant were fully aware of the reality of the situation. However, they come out with this line that the poll tax brought down Thatcher and they organised the anti-poll tax campaign. Of course, the poll tax wasn't what brought down Thatcher, and Militant were far from the only group participating in the anti-poll tax movement. However, we played a large part in a movement that contributed to brining down Thatcher doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? It is basically a lie that they tell to people who are too young to know what actually happened to recruit them.


I accept that that may have been the "final straw" but I think it was the poll tax and the damage she did to her own party that paved the way for her to be dumped.

You have though virtually admitted to my point. That last statement is very different from this one:


Scottish Militant Labour was an explicitly Trotskyist organisation that organised people in working class communities against the poll tax, in a campaign which resulted in Thatcher being driven from office.

Or this one:


Thatcher left office primarily due to the pressure she faced from a mass anti-poll tax campaign, initiated by SML. Its probable she would have been forced out later, considering the poll tax was so unfair and unworkable.

Devrim

[Andy Bowden]

Of course, the poll tax wasn't what brought down Thatcher, and Militant were far from the only group participating in the anti-poll tax movement. However, we played a large part in a movement that contributed to brining down Thatcher doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? It is basically a lie that they tell to people who are too young to know what actually happened to recruit them.

Militant were not the only group involved in the anti-payment campaign, but they were without doubt the leading force in organising it - the same way today the SWP are the leading force in the STWC for example.

In terms of my statements being different I dont think,


Scottish Militant Labour was an explicitly Trotskyist organisation that organised people in working class communities against the poll tax, in a campaign which resulted in Thatcher being driven from office.

is that different from,


Thatcher left office primarily due to the pressure she faced from a mass anti-poll tax campaign, initiated by SML. Its probable she would have been forced out later, considering the poll tax was so unfair and unworkable.

The basic points remain that the anti-poll tax federations were primarily set up by Militant, and the anti-poll tax campaign was the single biggest factor in bringing down Thatcher.

If there had not been a successful anti-poll tax campaign then there would not have been enough pressure on the tories to dump Thatcher. She may have been kicked out for different reasons later on, but that is speculative.

[Devrim]

They weren't the ones that I said were different. I agree they were the same. The one I said was different was:


I accept that that may have been the "final straw" but I think it was the poll tax and the damage she did to her own party that paved the way for her to be dumped.

Would it have happened without the final straw? If not then the final straw is decisive.


The basic points remain that the anti-poll tax federations were primarily set up by Militant, and the anti-poll tax campaign was the single biggest factor in bringing down Thatcher.

The basic point remains unproven.


If there had not been a successful anti-poll tax campaign then there would not have been enough pressure on the tories to dump Thatcher. She may have been kicked out for different reasons later on, but that is speculative.

Change this to read:


If the conflicts about Europe in the Tory party hadn't happened then there would not have been enough pressure on the tories to dump Thatcher. She may have been kicked out for different reasons later on, but that is speculative..

Is it equally true? If it is then your central point is wrong.

Devrim

[Ferryman 5]

Can I get you blokes a bevy? In appreciation of a spirited, concise and patient argument. cheers!

The thorny questions are about what happened afterwards. With sadly few notable exceptions, the Trotskyists (which is what this thread is about) sadly campaigned for, and voted New Labour. Check it out.

Why? Because, like Stalinism, Trotskyism is imbued with opportunist, enterist, (Labour and Unions) peaceful coexistence philosophy. And you know it is, don't y.

[Ferryman 5]

Zurdito ?

Just for the record, a correction to your predicable Trotsky's lyes. I never said anything about Jews and you know it. Go on show us, or stop spreading your new anti-communist provocation. Your CIA script is easily recognised.

[chegitz guevara]

Cia?

[Aurora]

OK, I take you at you word for the moment and pretend that Trotskyism is something other than an anti-communist counter revolutionary stunt.
hahaha

The thorny questions are about what happened afterwards. With sadly few notable exceptions, the Trotskyists (which is what this thread is about) sadly campaigned for, and voted New Labour. Check it out.
This thread is more about your rediculus politics than trotskyism.Maybe you should 'check it out', the majority of trotskyists infact left labour.

(Labour and Unions)
Thats the most sectarian thing ive ever heard, cause the mass working class parties and unions are 'bourgeois' right? Well your perfectly entitled to stay in your moms bassment, but if its all the same to you we'll campaign and agitate with the workers.

But then again maybe im reading from my CIA script.

[Ferryman 5]

hahaha

This thread is more about your rediculus politics than trotskyism.Maybe you should 'check it out', the majority of trotskyists infact left labour.

Thats the most sectarian thing ive ever heard, cause the mass working class parties and unions are 'bourgeois' right? Well your perfectly entitled to stay in your moms bassment, but if its all the same to you we'll campaign and agitate with the workers.

But then again maybe im reading from my CIA script.

Silly twat.

Edit: Silly ignorant twat

[Zurdito]

Zurdito ?

Just for the record, a correction to your predicable Trotsky's lyes. I never said anything about Jews and you know it. Go on show us, or stop spreading your new anti-communist provocation. Your CIA script is easily recognised.


Has anyone been keeping up to speed with this debate? I came across this while looking for information about CIA infiltration of the Media.
The CIA infiltrating the Left?Peter Myers, January 15, 2003; update May 24, 2007. My comments are shown {thus}; write to me at mailto:[email protected] ([email protected]one.com.au).


http://hnn.us/articles/1530.html (http://hnn.us/articles/1530.html)


Last week HNN published Alan Wald's critique (http://hnn.us/articles/1514.html) of an article written by Michael Lind for the New Statesman in which Mr. Lind argued that defense policy in the Bush administration is orchestrated by a group of people, many of whom are Jewish, who were allegedly shaped by Trotskyism. This week we publish an exchange between Mr. Lind and Mr. Wald. Below is Mr. Lind's statement. Click here (http://hnn.us/articles/1536.html)for Mr. Wald's.

Why would you bother trying to deny it Ferryman?