: NJ:
: Ah, yes, I see. Were you aware, perchance, that david Horowitz has been exposed thoroughly for racism and for near-fascism?: Frenchy:
: But of course he has been labeled as such! He himself is a former comrade, a red diaper baby, who has seen the light. When they agree with you, they are on the side of angels, if the same person dares to change his mind and disagrees, why then he must be the Devil incarnate.
: Straw man, Frenchy!
: Horowitz was never a Marxist---he only called himself one (much as Mussolini called himself a religious man)!
: Marxism explicitly rejects terrorism!
: Why?
: As Trotsky put it:
:
: [I]ndividual terror is inadmissible precisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerless, and turns their eyes and hopes toward a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish this mission.(1)
:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Fine, you stick with that and I'll stick with Marx's own approval of the "...forceible overthrow of all existing conditions." as found in the last paragraph of the Communist Manifesto. Talk about a straw man. Harumph!
:
: Did Horowitz endorse terrorism in his 'left wing' Ramparts days? Go back to that stupid Time magazine you got your story from and see that I'm correct. Horowitz was---and still is---a total phony; he only believes whatever will get him published. Get hip to that, everybody!
The object lesson here class is that only a very brave man dares to draw the wrath of former comrades by stepping away from the party line.
Politburo says 'up' is 'down', then down it is! Politburo says 'black' is 'white', well then, black most certainly must be white.
Ever read 1984? Was he also just another phony ex-Commie who would print anything to get published?
Pathetic.
: _______________
:
: Note:
: 1. Trotsky, 'On Terrorism' [1911], Marxism & Terrorism, Pathfinder 1995, p. 10.
:
