PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — His U.S. Senate campaign under fire, Maine Democrat Graham Platner said Wednesday that a tattoo on his chest has been covered to no longer reflect an image widely recognized as a Nazi symbol.
The first-time political candidate said he got the skull and crossbones tattoo in 2007, when he was in his 20s and in the Marine Corps. It happened during a night of drinking while he was on leave in Croatia, he said, adding he was unaware until recently that the image has been associated with Nazi police.
This isn’t my own observation, it’s a well-trod assertion.
There’s been a lot of them, most way predating me. For me it’s probably Christopher Hitchens who started out out as trotskyist anti-stalinist and drifted over time to being in favor of the US-led full-scale invasion of Iraq.
Yeah, pretty much.
I read a little bit including his piece about the Iraq War. I think supporting the Iraq War can make him wrong, but I don’t think it makes him a neoconservative. All I can really say about it is, I think these people are making a similar mistake to the one I accused you of. Not every pair of people who support the same thing are obviously intellectually aligned with the same principles, and it is incredibly obvious to me that the person who wanted to overthrow Russian monarchy to install Communism is not the same as the people who wanted to invade the Middle East to install gangster capitalism.
I actually have a lot of criticisms of Communism as it plays out in practice, but even I would not accuse it of being on the same moral and intellectual level and fighting for the same principles as Bush and Rumsfeld were fighting for.
not sure how you took that from my statement, the point is that neoconservatism preserves Trotskyism’s revolutionary posture while inverting its content: the revolution is now for liberal capitalism rather than socialism.
So anything with a revolutionary posture is Trotskyism? Even if the content and what they stand for is inverted?
Y’all are so strange. I don’t really expect anything more productive (like you saying “of course I am not saying that because that would be insane”). Thank you for the pointer in any case, I will read more about the Russian revolution.
you keep making broad leaps from my statements, doesn’t make you easy to talk to either. you understand that just because oranges are round not all round things are orange, right?
I said that a number of neocons started their political trajectory as trotskyists, then became neocons later in life. There’s a list of some in the wiki I linked you.
This is the part I take issue with. Christopher Hitchens is not a neocon. Nothing I saw in anything you linked to made it seem convincing to me that any other ones of these people were neocons either. Also you flipped it around trying to say (apparently) that genuine neocons can also be considered as Trotskyites because of their “revolutionary posture” which to me is utterly insane. It’s weird and not correct on both sides, as far as I can tell.
You say I have misunderstood you. Sure. Let’s narrow it down. Aside from that one singular factor of him supporting invading Iraq for totally different reasons than the neocons wanted to invade Iraq, what makes you think Christopher Hitchens is a neocon? Or is it just that one thing?
hmmm, k.
It’s manifestly not what I said
It’s his aligning specifically with neocons and writing in support of the full-scale invasion of Iraq that I took issue with. You are asking me to have a charitable read of someone who took an opposing geopolitical position. I hope you can appreciate the irony of the posts you’ve made complaining about communists on lemmy being too aligned with Russia, especially because any ‘support of russia’ that I’ve seen from anonymous posters has been significantly more muted than any of the many articles that Hitchens wrote in support of the full-scale invasion of Iraq.
Holy shit – okay, TIL. I genuinely am sorry to be so rude about this part of it when it seems like you’re 100% right about it. There really were a bunch of people who were anti-Stalin communists in their youth and Trotsky fans, who then went on to become neocons. Fair enough. All I can really say is that you say stuff which is so bizarre sometimes that I assumed this was more of that.
Case in point!:
How did he align with neocons, other than that they supported invading Iraq and he supported invading Iraq? Is it literally just that one thing, or is there something else? You didn’t address that part of the question.
I really am sorry about being rude about that other thing, I just didn’t know that part of the history so I apologize. You definitely didn’t do yourself favors by bringing up Hitchens though lol, because him I do know. Again tell me: Why do you think he is a neocon?
apology accepted, anyways the last thing I want is to be taken too seriously.
I brought him up because I’m familiar with him as well, I read a number of his books early on in my own political trajectory and it was his full embrace of fearmongering about Islam post 9/11 that turned me off of him entirely. I appreciate that he was principled about waterboarding at least.
bringing him up served my wider rhetorical point that you would cry foul at association of Hitchens with neocons over a geopolitical position, but participate in spaces where a perceived alignment with Russia on geopolitics is all it takes for communists and anarchists to get smeared as secret Republicans, Russian bots, faking being trans, etc.
looks like special pleading