Michael Hoover wrote:
> > Trotsky himself seems like not an entirely bad sort, but Trots are
> > another story entirely, except maybe for the Mpls general strike. I
> > can't imagine their net contribution to human betterment to have been
> > positive, but I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary.
> > Doug
>
>I've a hunch that some anarchists and left social revolutionaries at
>Konstradt would disagree with your initial comment (although what
>'not an entirely bad sort' means is, well...) and I know some folks
>who would point out their importance to anti-Vietnam War movement in
>responding to your second comment.
>
>Other sentence of your post is 'kinder, gentler' disparagement and
>likely disingenuous. Such discussion on pen seems remote (listers
>finding it tangential) and it is kind of topic that you generally
>discourage on lbo.
Not disingenous at all. The older I get, the less certain I feel
about nearly everything, and the more I want to hear contrary
opinions. So I was grateful to hear about the role of the SWP in the
antiwar movement. I'd never discourage a conversation about the
political contributions of Trotskyism, as long as it didn't
degenerate into the 4,732nd rerun of the Stalin-Trotsky debate. As
for tangency, I'd have thought that unlike their mainstream
colleagues, "progressive" economists wouldn't be uninterested in
politics, but maybe I'm wrong.
Doug
