3 ms·
The article doesn't call Trotsky an intellectual. Here's the paragraph: > In Mexico, President Lázaro Cárdenas — one of the most popular leaders in twentieth-c
by twic 7y ago
The article doesn't call Trotsky an intellectual. Here's the paragraph:
> In Mexico, President Lázaro Cárdenas — one of the most popular leaders in twentieth-century history — had turned his country into a haven for persecuted intellectuals: after the fall of the Spanish Republic, he offered political asylum to thousands of refugees, and Mexico received a massive influx of artists, poets, academics, and philosophers who played a crucial role in postwar culture. In a world threatened by the rise of fascism, Cárdenas opened his nation’s doors to socialists and fellow travelers of all kinds. Leon Trotsky accepted Cárdenas’s invitation and settled in Mexico City in 1937.
It says that Cárdenas did two things: firstly, after the fall of the Spanish Republic in 1939, he took in "artists, poets, academics, and philosophers", and secondly, in the face of fascism, he took in "socialists and fellow travelers", including Trotsky, who arrived in 1937. It's the artists, poets, academics, and philosophers fleeing Franco who were the persecuted intellectuals.
As a result, your comment and the subthread hanging off it are null and void.
- CryptoPunk 7y agoThe by-line says: the imperiled psychoanalyst would have found himself living among the world’s foremost artists and intellectuals. And then mentions the hypothetical meetings with Trotsky several times. I interpreted that as Trotsky being categorized as an intellectual.
- twic 7y agoI agree that it doesn't go out of its way to clarify that Trotsky is not amongst that set. But then why should it? If it had mentioned that Freud would have met El Santo, you wouldn't be raging about how it had failed to clarify that he wasn't an intellectual.
- CryptoPunk 7y agoIf it doesn't explicitly exclude Trotsky from the set, my interpretation is going to be that Trotsky is one of those intellectuals.