While the coup attempt in Nicaragua was portrayed as a peaceful people’s uprising by figures like La Botz, it was in fact a violent putsch that saw armed elements erect roadblocks across the country, holding up ambulances, torturing, brutalizing, kidnapping, and murdering supporters of the Sandinistas.
Anti-Sandinista insurgents dragged an unarmed, on-leave police officer to death from a truck and then burnt his corpse at a roadblock. They raped a 10-year-old girl at a roadblock and burnt the homes of local Sandinista legislators. They occupied and ransacked a public university campus, wrecked a women’s health center, and torched a daycare center.
The armed opposition wreaked this havoc while attacking police stations with mortars and gunfire, during a national dialogue in which the police were ordered to remain in their barracks. In the end, Nicaragua’s opposition caused the deaths of over 60 innocent people, while grinding the country’s previously productive economy to a halt. [Source]
The "La Botz" mentioned there is Dan La Botz:
Daniel H. La Botz (born August 9, 1945) is a prominent American labor union activist, academic, journalist, and author. He was a co-founder of Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU) and has written extensively on worker rights in the United States and Mexico. He is a member of the socialist organization Solidarity, which describes itself as "a democratic, revolutionary socialist, feminist, anti-racist organization," which comes out of the Trotskyist tradition. La Botz ran in 2010 for a seat in the United States Senate for the Socialist Party. He is also a member of the Brooklyn branch of the Democratic Socialists of America and a co-editor of the socialist journal New Politics. [Source]
You've possibly heard about the self-described liberal interventionists. They are Americans who favor US regime-change wars for ostensibly liberal reasons. The "liberal" there is typically the social liberal variety rather than the civil libertarian or economic ("classical" and/or generous) varieties.
Well, there are obviously socialist interventionists as well. What they have to do with the neocons is that they both come out of the Trotskyist "world revolution" mold.
The neocons started out as pure Trotskyists but then turned toward more so-called free-market but globalist capitalism. In other words, they wanted to be rich. They turned to the US government to supply the military might to wage global war until only the neocon ideology stands supreme over the entire planet with all others enslaved under that ideology. So, the socialist interventionists are the same but never gave up the socialist goal.
The socialist interventionists see various nations about the globe as easier to first subdue via US might. Then those socialist interventionists intend to turn the US into a socialist nation-state. Just how democratic it would be is anybodies guess.
It would be, if those socialist interventionists were to have their way, quite anarchistic and authoritarian at the same time: anarchistic from the conservative viewpoint but authoritarian from the civil-libertarian perspective. Those particular socialists would allow what the current social conservatives don't want. At the same time, those particular socialists wouldn't allow any descent concerning the "liberalism." Those who disagree would be dealt with possibly in a rather Stalinist manner: harshly to say the least.
What's the alternative to all of this? Anti-war for one.
There's a deep split in the newly budding "socialism" within the US.
On one basic side, there're the anti-war, pro-democracy, economic socialists. On the other side, there're the regime-change (war-mongering), social-liberal "socialists."
Never the twain shall meet.