Posted on 08/15/2016 3:30:20 PM PDT by oblomov
Jeremy Corbyn used his position in Parliament to call for the “complete rehabilitation” of Leon Trotsky, it has emerged despite dismissing concerns about hard-Left entryism as “nonsense”.
In 1988, the Labour leader – then a backbencher – demanded the Marxist revolutionary and other communists have their achievements formally recognised by the Russian state.
Mr Corbyn was one of a series of prominent left-wingers who put their name to an Early Day Motion, a form of parliamentary petition with no standing in law, which made the call.
It came to light after parliamentary staff on Monday uncovered a paper record of the demand in an underground archive in Westminster.
While the views date to another era when the Soviet Union still existed and the Cold War was ongoing, Labour sources have used the comments to question Mr Corbyn’s current stance on entryism.
Last week Tom Watson, the deputy leader, warned that the party was being targeted by “Trotsky entryists” linked to organisations previously banned from joining Labour.
However Mr Corbyn’s campaign dismissed the claims as “baseless conspiracy theories” while the Labour leader called them “nonsense” on Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Filth like Corbyn should be sentenced to hard labour in Perm 36.
Indeed, let him experience “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”.
The only good thing Joseph Stalin ever did was to put an icepick in Trotsky’s brain.
Wasn’t it an ice axe?
I never knew much about Trotsky but always thought he was even more hard core than Stalin.
Once the point of the axe punctured his skull, he was pretty much a softy.
Trotsky has done a lot more damage than Stalin has.
There's a word for you.
I don’t know anything about Trotsky. But I do recall my Sophomore history teacher describing him as not a leftist by Russian standards was more of a anarchist.
Stalin = national communism
Trotsky = international communism
Trotsky was among the many victims of Stalin’s purges. But that doesn’t make him innocent. He advocated the violent overthrow of free societies such as the US.
The tactics of Trotskyites are different than those of Stalinists. Gramsci, Adorno, and Horkheimer would have allied themselves with Trotsky, and rejected Stalin.
Saul Alinsky was in the Trotskyite tradition.
Yes, indeed.
The left almost always keeps its goals, methods, and even jargon under wraps. But the truth comes out when they think they are talking only amongst themselves.
Thank you for the explanation.
I used to employ Trotsky to wrap up my explanation of why Nazi’s were leftists. Historically, the falling out between Hitler and Stalin provided the confusion that liberals employ to assign Nazi ideology to the right. “They were enemies, weren’t they?” My response to this nonsense is that Trotsky and Stalin weren’t exactly on opposite ends of the political spectrum.
I think all Socialists and Communists goal is the violent overthrow of everything. I guess maybe Fabians are an exception.
Some of them hide it really well.
There wasn't a world war between Trotsky and Stalin.
I understand and agree that Nazism and Stalinism had a lot in common, but the fact that the bloodiest war in world history was fought between them wasn't insignificant and did much to establish them as opposites in both the popular and the academic mind.
I think it's not so much that Nazis and Communists were together on the left as that the idea that politics can be reduced to a simple two-dimensional model is too reductive. You can find different ways to put different ideologies on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but there isn't one way that beats out all the others.
Another example would be Lucky Luciano and Dutch Schultz.
They were both gangsters who shared the same basic ideology.
So why did they fight?
Answer: because - they were both gangsters who shared the same basic ideology.
They fought over turf. They fought over territory, wealth - whatever there was to take. So did Hitler and Stalin.
And, progressives see socialists and commies as their righteous ideological cousins whose error is being insufficiently pragmatic.
Progressives are OK with letting a market economy persist as long as they can control it. In this sense, progressives are crypto-Leninists. Lenin advocated “state capitalism”, wherein businesses would be allowed to continue growing and profiting, but the state would control “the commanding heights”.
I had a great Uncle who was concilari to Lucky, but Lucky did not want to listen.
Second bloodiest.
The Taiping rebellion killed between 20 and 70, repeat 70 million people. And hardly anyone in the West has even heard of it.
The falling out between Stalin and Hitler was merely an issue of methods for establishing a totalitarian state. They were both statists to the nth degree.
Don’t put them at opposite ends of a spectrum. It was a falling out among thieves. Do the gang wars of Mexico warrant classifying rival gangs with different ideological categories on opposite ends of some spectrum? “Academics” who do this with Nazi’s and Communists are shallow thinkers.
Classical liberalism held up the rights of the individual. Modern liberalism upholds the supremacy of the state over the rights of the individual. The redefinition of the term “liberal” occurred in the first half of the 20th century.
Democrats, Communists, Socialists, Stalinists, Nazis, and others of their ilk have no regard for individual liberty.
The Democrats have totally confused equality of opportunity with equality of results. They intend to reach the latter by employing the power of the state. The “state” determines what is “fair” and who is giving their “fair” share. Thus, they should be lumped in with other statists.
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.