Talk:Fourth International/Archive 1

Incoming Vandalism

Just a heads up, the vandals are coming fast and furious. Probably from my IP too. (Remoc, not signed in) 66.228.70.170 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about accidentally reverting this message. I didn't mean to revert anything. You see, I'm having problems with popups, where it sometimes opens a preview of a random link on pages as they are loading. I had just went to my watchpage, and it opened the preview of the diff for the latest edit on this talk page. I meant to go to the popups menu of the popup and click reset so it would go away (it is the only way to get these random popups to close), but I went to the actions menu by accident and I clicked revert (it is reset and revert are both the second options on the menus). I am sorry about this, and I have reverted my revert. --LuigiManiac | Talk 15:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Communism! 68.197.28.121 19:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Commie Propaganda Article" subject is down that way: V --LuigiManiac | Talk 19:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

older entries

Where does the name come from?

It's now explained in the article. Warofdreams 10:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stalinism

It is not appropriate to change "Stalinist" to "anti-revisionist". Anti revisionism implies Maoism or at least anti-Kruschevism, rather than particularly anti-Trotskyism. As the anti-revisionism article states, until at least the death of Stalin, anti-revisionist meant anti-social democratic, which applied equally to Trotskists. Warofdreams 10:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ICFI bias

I've reverted a large number of edits by an anon user, which were intended to lead the article to the conclusion

"Only the ICFI has carried through the Trotskyist program to this day. They publish the World Socialist Website, which according to Alexa.com is the most widely read international socialist news publication. It draws 10s of thousands of readers, publishes in numerous languages, and exerts an ever wider influence."

While there might be some useful material in these edits, this is not the place to discuss the ICFI, nor should it come to any conclusions unsupported by evidence. Warofdreams 11:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I have changed the passage which you had a contention with. Please address individual instances of "bias" rather than wholesale deletions. Many of the changes addressed historical *falsifications*, a more serious problem than bias.

• OK, I've been through the article. Many of my changes have been to remove discussion of current positions or those held after the scope of the article, by the ICFI, ISFI and U.S. ISO. I've also removed or altered assertions that Pablo and his comrades' views were wrong, a betrayal, etc, as this is clearly a point of view not shared by the ISFI. Finally, I've removed discussion on the LSSP as I think this was after '63 (but if I'm wrong, please correct me), and "In 1939, when Stalin signed the Stalin-Hitler pact, many people around the world left the Comintern, some joining the Trotskyist movement." as I'm unsure that many former CPers joined the Trotskyists - but if I'm mistaken, I'd be glad to hear it. Warofdreams talk 11:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I dimly remember reading something, perhaps by Gerry Healy, than comments on a recruit made at that time and describing them as one of very few made at that time from the CP. --DuncanBCS 21:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean, "after the scope of the article"? The article is about the Fourth International, which exists until the present. The existing political organizations' present stands are just as important, if not more important, their winding histories.

• Part of the problem is that the continued existence - or otherwise - of the Fourth International is a matter of debate among Trotskyists. There is a case for developing the final section into one on the continued idea of a Fourth International and attempts to rebuild, but the various international tendencies into which it fragmented - including the USFI and the ICFI - have articles in which their positions can be better debated. I'm not sure, but if you see the Fourth International as representing the whole of Trotskyism, then that is the appropriate article for these discussions.

I don't think Pablo's views were deemed "wrong", but they were in opposition to Trotsky's positions, which can be proved without question. His predictions were certainly wrong.

• Well, I agree that his predictions were wrong, and so long as we can source the accusations, we seem to have agreement on this.

In fact, the LSSP refused to take a position over the 1953 split. In 1964, they joined a capitalist government with the continued support of the ISFI. The ICFI, at this point, encouraged members of the LSSP to leave the party in order to defend the Trotskyist program.

• Great, it'd be good to discuss this in the ICFI, USFI and LSSP articles. Taking place after '64, it's currently outside the scope of the article.

Yes, many CPers did leave the Communist Parties and many did become Trotskyists, especially in the United States.

• Great, we can probably use this information in the article (and if not, certainly in the Trotskyism article). In Britain, it seems that the main trigger for CPers to join the Trotskyists was not the pact but the CPGB's strikebreaking actvities during the war.

• The final area of difference appears to be over Trotsky's attitude to Shachtman. This is dealt with in Shachtmanism and could be usefully covered in Trotskyism, but seems superfluous here where we just need a very brief summary of what Trotskyism is. Warofdreams talk 15:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why a very brief summary of Trotskyism is what we need. The point of a marxist party, as argued first by Lenin and later by Trotsky, is to organize the revolutionary vanguard, to constantly defend the basic principles of marxism against revisionism, and to lead the revolution of the working class.

Schachtman represented the first split from within the Fourth International on Trotsky's position on the nature of the Soviet Union. That the Fourth International expelled him and his supporters is an important event and reveals how Trotsky intended for the Fourth International to deal with revisionists.

• Shachtman wasn't expelled for his revisionism: his tendency split, primarily on organisation issues. --DuncanBCS 21:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This is all argued in Trotsky's own book, In Defense of Marxism, which he wrote as a guide for the Fourth International in its relations with the revisionists within the F.I. This is where Trotsky outlined his opposition to the concept of "state capitalism" and "collective bureaucratization", the positions of the ISO and the ISFI respectively.

The ISFI also opposed "collective bureaucratization": you are thinking of the Workers Party (US)--DuncanBCS 21:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If you talk about the transitional program, you have to also talk about In Defense of Marxism, without which it is impossible to understand the Fourth International!

• I think that the section on Shachtman works much better in its new location in the article, and have made some changes to your text. Warofdreams talk 11:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Incredibly Poor Accuracy

Why is the 4th internation using the communism template? The 4th international was against the USSR, ie: against the group associated with commmunism and was a socialist international... ie: put the socialist template up. This is of incredibly poor accuracy.

The Fourth International never took a stance against the USSR. The trotskyist position of of defending the USSR against the bureaucracy, something which requires a political revolution.--80.43.10.171 22:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The Fourth International regarded itself as communist, as the article clearly states, and as standing in the (Communist) tradition of Marx and Lenin. While the communism template may be of questionable usefulness, it is not inaccurate to use it one this article. Warofdreams talk 09:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You cannot cite wikipedia as a source. Anyway... Today whoever uses 4th international refers to socialism. And when founded, it was not connected to the USSR (which uses the hammer and sickle symbol, as u can see in the template). It is of incredible misinformation to use that hammer and sickle. Which is why I say it is of incredibly poor accuracy. Either the template has to remove that symbol and place a more broadly communist symbol (less USSR emphasis) and being that this article isn't about the USSR...

Templates are good, but they are not to be used simply because they 1) exist 2) have some *mere* thing to do with the article.--4.152.102.163 12:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The hammer and sickle appear in a modified version in the emblem of the Fourth International (as depicted in the article). I'm all for changes to the Communism template - they need to be discussed on the template talk page. Warofdreams talk 12:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

yes, two entirely different smybols!! It doesn't matter if it is red and gold! Symbolic_interactionism. This should be removed from this article because it is not fitting at all.--4.152.102.140 01:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Since nobody objects to: 1) This template is not crucial nor really even helping this article 2) This kind of communist movement disassociates itself with communism as most know it (USSR). Notice that the Hammer and Sickle of the fourth international is inverted (often inverted for latin american communist movements as well as others which dissasociate themselves with USSR style communist movement). Being that this template doesn't really help, and only misinforms-- why have it at all?--So Hungry 21:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge in the USFI article? (2005)

There's not much on the FI page after 1963, when the USFI should page start. However, both pages over massively in their descritpion of the split between 53 and 63, but neither is able to explore the complex roots of the split.

To all intents, the FI as an organisation, today, can only be the USFI. It also represents something like the mainsteam, the median, of the Trotskyist diaspora. Although Trotskyists outside the FI argue that the FI had lapsed into centrism at some time in the past, few - if any - question the organisational continuity reflected by the reunification congress. Merging the two pages could also allow a much clearer structure: summarising eents between the successive world congresses. What do people think? We would have to be careful to flag up the other currents that have moved into and out of the USFI current.

The last World Congress adopted new statutes, which means that there no longer is a committee called the United Secretariat. Merging the pages would also avoid a lot of the hassle asociated with that.

Comments? --DuncanBCS 18:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback. I'm now convinced that my suggestion was mistaken. --DuncanBCS

Merge in the ISFI article?

This pages has a "Main article: International Secretariat of the Fourth International" link but, in fact, there's more information on this page about the IS than on that page. The IS existed from 1938, not only from 1953. This page nicely links to the post-63 ICFI and USFI pages, but the IS page is not needed. --DuncanBCS 21:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm unsure about this proposal. It would neatly solve the problem of, as you say, the IS existing from '38 while the ISFI article implies it was founded in '53. On the other hand, it could easily imply that the ISFI was the Fourth International, which is at the core of the dispute. On balance, I'd say go for it, but we'll need to watch the wording carefully. Warofdreams talk 15:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we are lucky that most are happy [for the period between '53 and '63] with the form of words about 'two public factions'. Since it offers no new information, I have removed the link to the ISFI page: there is nothing new there. If any link is needed, it is to the ICFI and USFI pages. We could rename Other Fourth Internationalists as After 'Reunification' and put links in there. I've also reworked the entry a little, mainly to emphasise that the 4th and 5th congresses were organised by the IS. I'll wait a little more, to see if there is any new feedback, before turning the IS pages into a redirect page. --DuncanBCS 17:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, I have merged in the pages and done the redirect. Here's the former text...--DuncanBCS 13:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The International Secretariat of the Fourth International was the executive committee responsible for the regular operation of the international organisation of Trotskyists, the Fourth International (FI), founded in 1938. It was theoretically answerable to the International Executive committee between full Congresses of the International. In fact, as noted by Leon Trotsky, none of these bodies actually functioned. Instead, the International functioned on an ad hoc basis in prior to its centre being moved to New York after the Second World War began.

When the FI was reorganised after 1945, again based in France, the IS again became its leading committee. It was dominated by the figures of Ernest Mandel (Germain) and Michel Raptis (Pablo). When the FI split into two public factions in 1953, the majority current led by these two men was known by those outside it as the International Secretariat of the Fourth International (although they continued to regard it as being the Fourth International).

When the majorities of the ISFI and ICFI factions were reunited in 1963 with the American Socialist Workers' Party the new leading committee became known as the United Secretariat of the Fourth International.

Origins: Split with the Shachtmanites/role of theory

About this: "Trotsky argued that the Fourth International must defend the theoritical heritage of Marxism as a whole, including his analysis of the degenerated workers' state and Lenin's theory of the party, rather than ignoring theoritical differences to maintain a superficial and temporary unity."

This reglects something: Trotsky and the SWP were for maintaining unity on, despite this disagreement. Unity discussions continued over the next deecade. This line about Shatchman feels like a ICFI POV hinting at their split with Pierre Lambert over issues of theory and philosophy.

Can anyone suggest a good way to rework this? Or am I mistaken?--DuncanBCS 11:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Split of the super-Pabloites

In those three countries, where the faction right had let to splits, some supporters of entrism "sui generis" had started to see entrism as a strategy rather than a tactic: they argued unsuccessfully that the FI as a whole should liquidate (according to 'Pabloism Reviewed', and walked out of the 1954 congress (according to the SWP's 'Towards a History...'). Does anyone know more about this? Pablo always fought hard against the idea that the FI should dissolve, and while the Pierre Frank group in France stayed in the FI, I am not sure that the Lawrence group in the US or the Cochran group in the US became sections. Was Lawrence in the RSL?--DuncanBCS 11:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded our entry on Lawrence; [1] has a useful quote from him confirming that "The American minority, a small group of Canadians and an even smaller group of French walked out with me. It was a nasty experience and very bitter". Lawrence never joined the RSL; he moved towards the CPGB and joined them in '58. Warofdreams talk 02:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this! I'd been confused, because I'd seen a reference to Lawrence being in the RSL - but it was in the original RSL, rather than the later one! --DuncanBCS 21:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The Michelle Mestre group not Franks PCI were the super-Pabloites as you call them. they entered the PCF and then split from Pablos international tendency. The Lawrence group dissolved.

You are quite right here. The article reflects that as well. --Duncan 16:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggested redraft: Other fourth Internationalists

I have been thinking of a way to balance Raphael's contributions with mine. How about this...

Since the 1963 reunification, four approaches developed within Trotskyism towards the Fourth International.

• The United Secretariat of the Fourth International presents itself as "the" Fourth International. At the time of reunification, it represented the majorities of all but two of the FI national organisations. It remains the only current with direct organizational continuity to the original Fourth International. Leaders of some other Trotskyist Internationals occasionally refer to the USFI as “the Fourth International”: ICFI secretary Gerry Healy, when proposing reunification discussions in the 1970s, described the USFI as “the Fourth International”; the IST also refers to the USFI in this way.
• The ICFI member groups customarily describe themselves as sections of the Fourth International. However, the ICFI presents itself as the “political continuity of the FI”, not as the FI itself. It clearly dates its creation as 1953, rather than from 1938. The Lambert tendency continued this approach after it established an "International Secretariat of the Fourth International" in 1993,
• Some tendencies that have emerged from the ICFI tradition argue that the FI ceased to exist politically, and consequently work to "reconstruct", "reorganise" or "rebuild" it. This view originated with Lutte Ouvriere and Spartacist, and accounts from their divergence from the ICFI in 1966.
• Other Trotskyist groups argue that the Fourth International is dead. They call for the establishment of a "workers' international" or Fifth International.

--DuncanBCS 09:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This looks fine to me, except that I'd replace the numbering with bullet points, as numbering can suggest a hierarchy of importance. Two minor points: The third sentence should probably read "a few other Trotskyist internationals" and " occasionally refer to the USFI" as it otherwise rather overstates the case; and it should probably say "the majority of all but two of the FI groups" as there had been so many splits. Warofdreams talk 11:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. You're so good at this! I've made those changes above.--DuncanBCS 11:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There are a few things that seem to me to be mistaken in this. One is that the Lambertistes clearly do refer to themselves as the fourth international (see for example the socialist organizer website), in contrast to the ICFI. The second regards the ICFI; they now customarily refer to themselves as the leadership of the Fourth International (which seems to me clearer, if more patently ridiculous, than 'the political continuity'), and I would be rather surprised to find a recent instance of them referring to the USFI as 'the Fourth International'. I also don't think that the differences over the exact degree of degeneration of the FI 'account for' the divergences of various groups descending from the ICFI.

Also, I think there ought to be some explanation of what all of this actually means. It seems to me that there are three groups based on their perspective of who they want to work with:

• The USFI and some other groups (mainly the IST and ex-IST groups since approximately 2001 and some Morenists around the magazine Movimiento) which are aiming for a broad collaboration, ideally including most self-described Totskyists and some other like-minded folks

• Groups who want to establish a unity on the basis of 'anti-revisionist' Trotskyism (ICFI at least in the past, Lambert up to the '80s, most Morenoists in the LIT and I think also the UIT, Cooordination for the Refoundation of the Fourth International, etc.); these groups seldom work with each other but do sometimes try to merge or otherwise work things out

• Groups that see themselves as the sole repositories of revolutionary thought in the world today (Spartacists and their offshoots, CWI, CMI, the IST pre-2001, I think Lambertistes since the '90s, possibly the ICFI today, I'll take your word about LO); these seldom seriously relate to anyone outside their tendency

These differences in perspective I think underly the different views/definitions of the FI. The first have no trouble referring to the USFI as the fourth international; the second would seldom do so, insofar as they use the term in the present tense it generally describes the Trotskyist movement as a whole. Some of the second and some of the third maintain that the FI no longer exists; some of the third (the Lambertistes) maintain that they are the FI. Rafaelgr 17:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Wow! This would be very useful! It could be a POV nightmare, but it's worth trying. I've amended the comment on the Lambertists to make the point that they do not claim to be the FI of 1938, but the refounded ISFI of 1993. I'll look at Raphael's wording and, if he cannot do it first, I'll think about rephrasings. --DuncanBCS 17:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Is that list based on any evidence? It seems to be advancing a theory, which would require agreed definitions of what terms such as "anti-revisionist" Trotskyism mean. I can't figure out where certain other groups (e.g. Workers Liberty) would fit into this list, and some of the categorisation seems awkward - for example, the CWI groups often work with others, outside their tendency. The advantage of Duncan's list is that it is essentially NPOV, based on the group's own definition of the Fourth International. Warofdreams talk 18:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, a list based on Raphael's would probably be better as suppliment following mine: but can be make it NPOV? I could image something starting:

"These different ideas of how the continuity of the Fourth International has developed also reflect differences in how Trotskyist currents view the question of unity.

• In the opinion of the USFI, the IST and ex-IST groups, and the magazine Movimiento the political basis already exists for a number of revolutionary marxist organisations to merge.
• In the opinion of others, such a basis does not yet exist but could be elaborated by in colaboration with other revolutionary tendencies thought developing the positions defended by the IC between 1953 and 1963. This is the view of the followers of Nahuel Moreno (such as the LIT and the UIT) and of the Co-ordinating Committee for the Refoundation of the Fourth International.
• Some groups argue that only their tendency represents authentic Trotskyism. This is the view of the iSt, CWI, CMI, Pierre Lambert's current and the ICFI."

What do you think? --DuncanBCS 18:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry its crap. The IST customarily calls the USFi the FI but this does not mean that it recognises it as the authentic and only inheritor of Trotskys politics. Quite the contrary it regards the USFI as having broken from some of the fundamental positions of LDT. Again the position attributed to LO is totally wrong. On regroupment the various tendencies may say they are for it but none act on that by fusing except the LCR in which all groups coexist but nonetheless do not fuse at a theoretical level. Unless that is explained, which cannot be done properly with any ease, the section is nonsense.

Merge 'Origins' and 'Trotskyism' into chronological sections?

These two sections duplicate a lot of what is said later, and contain extra details that would be useful lower down in the page. I suggested taking everything post-1933 from these sections and moving them down below. Any comments? --Duncan 07:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've moved the Trotskyism section above Origins, in the hope that this will simplify this merger, and taken a brief precis from that section up to the introduction. I'd like to keep "Trotskyism" separate, as when it was peer reviewed, there were requests for a simple, brief explanation of Trotskyism. I agree that the "Origins" section needs reworking; some of it is relevant (pre-1933 history and probably the overview of its relationship to other internationals), but other parts of the section should probably be merged into "the decision to form the international" and the "founding conference and WWII" sections.

• Thanks, that's a good start. I agree, we do need a short precis of Trotskyism. --Duncan 21:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Edited "The Fourth International today" to include "Lambertists"

I have just edited the section "The Fourth International today" to include the Lambertists' Congress in 1993 to "reproclaim" the Fourth International. I have also noticed that there is a blank article in Wikipedia entitled "International Secretariat of the Fourth International (1993)" which refers to the Lambertist grouping. Is there anyone here who is qualified to write it?

cargohook 01:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hi there. I think you had missed the reference to the Lambertists in the preceding paragraph. I have linked them together. I think you've put rather too much in about it -- it really merits its own page. I would be very cautious writing something about the Lambertist international. They seem to have more international organisations than national sections. To simply cut and paste their materials [as you seem to have done on the page with their workers' international] seems a little off-balance. I have changed "International Secretariat of the Fourth International (1993)" to Fourth International (ICR) and made a start on it. I've also taken your references to the Lambertists to there. --Duncan 17:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The Lambertists changed their name in 1993 from FI(ICR) to simple "FI". OK, this doesn't help, obviously so, my suggestion, and what we have been using on the Encyclopedia of Trotskyism On-Line (or will use) is FI (La Verite) to distiguish it fom the USFI. It's simple, it works, it's un-offensive to any one.

David Walters

If you'd like to propose moving our article, you can raise it at Talk:Fourth International (ICR). Warofdreams talk 20:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that David is suggesting moving it. However, it does make sense to at least create Fourth International (La Verite) as a redirect. --Duncan 12:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Links to the non-Fourth Internationalists?

I think the history of the Fourth INternational shoulod mention when Tony Cliff and his supporters left - seeing that they represent the other biggish tendency interationally today, it is useful to mention when they split away. John Mullen

I think it's fair to link to Cliff, but not to go further than a mention - especially since this is one of the Trotskyist currents that considers the formation of the FI to be an error. This was a national issue and is better covered on pages concerning Cliff, the SWP, the RCP and Trotskyism. I think to would be hard to explain when and why the separation happened without expanding similar detail on Shachtman, Grant, Workers' Fight. All of this would duplicate existing material on other pages. --Duncan 11:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

POV? The decision to form the International

This has been marked with the PV Flag, However, the POV flag requires the tagger to explain why that section is POV. I can't see such an explaination nor, at first glance, why that section is POV. For that reason, I have removed the tag. My observation is that this section is very weak. It fails to explain the crucial role of the defeat in Germany to the chance in orientation. I'll add that to my to-do list. In the meanwhile, are there other observations on that section?--Duncan 17:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed unverified sections

I've removed the following sections which remain unverified, after having been tagged for some time. Should anyone have sources, or be able to rewrite them in order that they can be sourced, please do so!

1. [On the Transitional Programme] "In this it builds on the positions and methods of the earlier Communist International and, as argued by Trotsky, the Transitional Programme is best seen as supplementing the traditional programmatic understanding of the movement."
2. [On the IES of 1939] "The secretariat was composed of those members of the International Executive Committee members who happened to be in the city, most of who were co-thinkers of Max Shachtman."
3. [On the IS of 1946] "They were chosen because of their role in leading the European Secretariat established by the European conference."

Nearly there now - just three more {{fact}} tags to source! Warofdreams talk 01:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement! I am adding in a reference to [2] now. --Duncan 08:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Great! Three more removals:

1. [On the size of the FI at the Third World Congress] "(outnumbered by the official communists by 1,000 to 1 or more)"
2. [On the perspectives on a forthcoming international civil war] "This was strikingly different to Trotsky's prognosis, who had foreseen an independent role for the Fourth International as mass organisation leading the working class."
3. [On Mandel's predictions of WWIII] "In the sectarian retrospectives, this was naturally total proof of Mandel's analytical ineptitude, once and for all."

ISO

Would not the ISO (International Socialist Orginization) fall into the list of internationalist orginizations?

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. There is no list of internationalist organizations in this article. Assuming you mean the American ISO, it is loosely connected to the USFI; it used to be part of the International Socialist Tendency. All of this is outside the scope of this article. Warofdreams talk 23:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible pov?

The opening paragragh -

"The Fourth International (FI) is a socialist international organisation working in opposition to both capitalism and to "Stalinism". Consisting of supporters of Trotsky, it has striven for an eventual victory of the working class to bring about socialism." -

seems to take the position that the Fourth International continues to exist in the present, despite the fact that a few paragraphs down the article states that "The broad array of Trotskyist Internationals are split over whether the Fourth International still exists and if so, which organisation represents its political continuity." Now, if there's strong disagreement amongst Trotskyists about whether the FI still exists, should the Wikipedia article be taking the firm position that it does? Serpent-A 03:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's disagreement that the FI exists; other tendencies argue that the FI is dead politically as a world party of socialist revolution. However, I don't think they would argue that the FI has not continued as an organisation. --Duncan 12:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Post-war developments

A section has been added to this page to argue that the FI leaders' recognition of workers states' in Eastern Europe means that, in the opinions of those leaders, Stalinism was no longer counter-revolutionary, and for that reason entrism into the CPs should be recommended. This is was not the view of the FI at that time. No references has been supplied for this line of reasoning. What's expecially disapppinting is that the chronological order is broken, to make this argument hang together a little. I'll be working on this... --Duncan 12:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that section's been there almost a year, but I agree that it is the view of the FI's critics and also chronologically odd. It'd be great to get this fixed ASAP. Warofdreams talk 22:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the 51 stuff up to the third congress and cut the stuff on revolutionary Stalinism.--Duncan 20:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Warofdreams talk 00:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

International Conference

Can we remove the section on Cliff and Schumpeter? Cliff's article wasn't presented at the conference, since it was written a year later and was circulated inside the RCP. Perhaps it deserves a mention on Cliff's page, but there were other debates that really did happen at the congress, with Haston and Moreno. --Duncan 20:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Cliff's article doesn't seem highly relevant, but the paragraph on Samuelson and Schumpeter provides some useful context on thought among capitalists about the future of capitalism at the time. Warofdreams talk 03:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"this implies acceptance of the ISFI's chronology"

References to the Fifth and Sixth world congress were removed from headings. What do folk think? Correspondance between the IC and IS at the time show that even the IS used those terms to refer to the IS's conferences. No-one else claims to have organised a fifth and sixth conference, since IC's conferences were described conferences of the IC, and started with the first. --Duncan 07:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, do you mean that the IC used those terms to refer to the IS's conferences? I didn't realise that that; if you have a reference, it'd be well worth adding a note into the article. Warofdreams talk 20:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, look through the documents during the split. The IC never referred to its congresses as congresses of the FI, but of the ICFI. Otherwise it would have resumed from the Fourth congreess. --Duncan 11:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but they didn't recognise the IS as the FI. That's not to say they were right, but having the headings in the same style as those for the first three congresses seems to me to imply that they were congresses of the FI. Given that the section isn't long, I'd suggest omitting the headings as they seems to have the potential to be controversial. Warofdreams talk 23:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ken McLeod

All moderately interesting, but is it relevant to the article? It looks like trivia; I'd suggest keeping it for the article on the author. What does anyone else think? Warofdreams talk 23:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. It was trivia; that some science fiction novel discusses the Fourth International is no reason to mention it in an encyclopedia entry. It basically amounts to advertising.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Commie Propaganda Article

Trotskyists are psychopaths who hate Stalin because Stalin was insufficiently murderous and totalitarian, that he didn't torture and murder enough Kulaks. That this commie propaganda got onto the front page reveals deep flaws in the 'Featured Article' selection process. -- John Alder 01:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we need a start a list of all the propaganda. Between pro-U.S., pro-gay, pro-India, anti-Australia, I just don't know how we keep track of all our prejudices. Without a list, there's just no feasible way to allocate our resources to best push our agenda. ShadowHalo 02:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Q: If Wikipedia were a person, what kind of personality would he have? - User:Raul654

A: The heart of a bureaucrat, the conscience of a sociopath, the self-preservation of a tokkōtai, and the consistency of a schizophrenic. - O^O

--user talk:O^O Raul654 03:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGENDA. Jouster  (whisper) 07:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop being stupid. Would you make a 'featured article' out of an entry authored primarily by Nazis and their sympathizers? -- John Alder 17:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I wouldn't care provided they wrote a good featured article. Nil Einne 17:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if your so sure this article shouldn't be a featured article you can look at a Wikipedia:Featured article review. However, if you do want to do that, you're going to need to identify problems better then it being a piece of 'commie propaganda'. Incidently, amongst the people who supported it through the FAC include User:Taxman/Bias disclosure and User:Quadell/aboutme (neither of who sound like 'commies' to me) Nil Einne 17:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps take this discussion elsewhere. The selection of this article as article of the day was not done here. If you think the article is POV, then find some references and come back to this Talk page. --Duncan 18:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this a trick question, John Adler? Because these two articles make the answer pretty obvious. Writing about a topic is not the same thing as writing in support of a topic. Stebbins 19:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So would we have a page about the history of the Third Reich written in a favorable light by Nazis and their sympathizers? -- John Alder 21:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

John, rather than ask rhetorical questions why not help improve the article? If you think the article is POV, then find some references and come back to this Talk page. --Duncan 14:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about blocking "commie" propaganda...you clearly show a dislike for communists. Also, you imply that only communists make their own page. I believe that radical right wing organizations often make their own pages. Orlando Bosch's page has a large movement to remove the title terrorist from his name, even though he is responsible for the deaths of large numbers of civilians...which were his targets. Also, there is often talk about how we would not let Nazis write their own pages, this is not a parallel because Nazism is based on beliefs of "scientific racism" or as we now call it, bull shit. Communism is based on logic. Might I add that on the Democracy page, we probably don't have communists writing about how it works.

Categories

I'm just curious. Why is this article in both the Featured Article and Featured Article Candidate (contested) categories? --LuigiManiac | Talk 03:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it is because the details of the first unsuccessful nomination are in the article history box. {{tl|FACfailed}} adds article to the FAC (contested category) so that template may do the same. If I'm right this needs to be fixed. I'll leave a message at Template talk:ArticleHistory. WjBscribe 03:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Tense

I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but as a native speaker of American English, I find it really weird that the first sentence is in the present perfect tense ("The Fourth International has been..."). The only circumstances I can think of offhand where one would use the present perfect like that is to refer to an action/event that just ended (like "This has been a great party") or to refer to an action/event that is ongoing and so the described attributes may change ("this has been a great party so far" or "Bush has been one of the worst/best Presidents ever"). Since I'm going to bet that no future incarnation of the FI will be against communism, I don't think the last applies. I haven't edited it in case there is some good reason that it is that way, but why not use either "is" or "was"? 63.145.80.66 05:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's that way because there's dispute as to whether or not the Fourth International still exist or not. ShadowHalo 12:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly right. It's the simplest form of words we could find to express that, depending on your point of view, the Fourth International may or may not exist. Warofdreams talk 13:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the mainstream view is that it does exist, but may or may not be revolutionary. Only those who call for a Fifth International formally that the FI is dead (that is a small enough view to not consider in the opening 'graph). The Lambertists argued that the Fourth International was dead as an organization, but its programme lived on and the FI was reconstructed. --Duncan 13:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, as an organisation there is to my knowledge no dispute (beside the Fifth International) about its existence, as it never has been dissolved. Politically, correct some people argue that the current FI does not represent the original ideas. But this is another debate. We would not write about the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party in past tense, even though many would argue that it is a completely different organisation than when it was founded in 1833. I found it thus misleading to have the past tense in the introduction, as we can not even tell how or when it allegedly ceased existing. Bertilvidet 13:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So perhaps we change it to present tense? --Duncan 14:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. In addition to the fifth internationalist, don't the CWI and IMT regard it as being defunct; the ICU and the third campists aren't so clear-cut but reserve the "Fourth International" as the term for the pre-53 organisation. Warofdreams talk 15:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The CWI says that the FI fragmented and the IMT calls it degenerated, neither call it defunct.[2] [--Duncan 15:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And for sure the CWI distances itself from the FI, for instance by referring to it as the so called Fourth International [3]. But no matter what they will argue it will be a breach of WP:VERIFY to imply that the FI does not exist any more. Bertilvidet 15:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The ICU certainly does not say the FI is dead.[4] It says (quite delicously) "the Fourth International has little to show for itself."--Duncan 15:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. The tense sounds glaringly unnatural, to the point of seeming incorrect to the average English speaker. The sentence in question appears on the Wikipedia main page and might give many readers a very poor first impression of the article (as I admit it gave me). 206.127.2.114 21:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Literary Reference Irrelevance

- Why is a complete irrelevance about a minor science fiction writer present in a serious article such as this? It is completely un-encyclopaediatic. Especially in a featured article! It should be removed. 22-Mar-2007 199.43.32.86 13:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus for this, so I've removed it. Warofdreams talk 02:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Section "Political Internationals"

Has a sentence at the end: "Although the Socialist International and Comintern were still in existence, the Trotskyists did not believe they were capable of supporting revolutionary socialism and internationalism." Suggest this be changed to "Although [...] did not believe these organizations were capable [...]" (emphasis to make suggestion explicit). The old version sounds like the Trotskyists didn't believe themselves (the "they") capable of supporting [yada yada]. I suppose "these movements" would also be appropriate, for replacing the nearest-binding "they" in any case; if an expression that characterizes the earlier International etc. is not appropriate for lack of a good, neutral-ish characterization, I suggest that the expression be reworked. 194.187.213.95 18:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent; many thanks for spotting that. --Duncan 19:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Highly POV

This article is nothing more than an exercise in Trotskyist and Stalinist pin dancing. All of its terms and points of reference are Leninist, e.g. "Consisting of followers of Leon Trotsky, it has striven for an eventual victory of the working class to bring about socialism."

Non-communists would never use those terms because they don't believe that revolution produces socialism, only brutal oligarchical collectivism, whatever the strain. Non-communists would say instead, "Consisting of followers of Leon Trotsky, it has striven to produce a revolutionary state that would incorporate Trotsky's ideals." These ideas would then be defined in plain language terms. Scott Adler 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So I'm adding the POV tag.

I'm rather surprised that you are able to speak for all non-communists. Most people would agree that revolutions can bring about any number of different things, from liberal democracy to an Islamic state. It's a particular point of view - and an unusual one - to say that a revolution can only bring about "oligarchical collectivism". In addition, your suggested wording does not make sense. It aimed to bring about a world revolution, not a single revolutionary state. That's one of the main differences between it and the Comintern. May I suggest that you read the article in full to ensure that you understand the topic? Warofdreams talk 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with War here. Also, you seem to be missing the point. We are describing their goals from their POV. There is nothing wrong with that. If other reliable sources have discussed their goals with the view they actually had different goals, and we don't mention this, show us the sources. Note that there is a difference between goals and likely achievement. Whether or whether not their goals would have achieved what they hope is a different issue from what their goals actually were. Nil Einne 07:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually having re-read the sentence in context I agree, it might be better if we rephrase it. Can someone come up with a better wording though? Nil Einne 07:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to remove the tag. Drakron 00:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Jargon

Tag or no, it would be better to remove communist jargon (as far as possible) from articles on communism, indeed, to remove any jargon (as far as possible) from any article.

Do you have any examples of such jargon? I can think of a handful of terms in it which could be termed jargon, such as "political international" or "entrism", but they (should) all be clearly defined, and I hope that the more specific terms are then used to clearly refer to complex concepts which were important to the international. If you have any examples of poor usage, however, please point them out so we can improve the article. Warofdreams talk 02:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Communism = USSR?? No!

I refer to quotes such as : "...communism as most know it (USSR)"

Communism as most adult Americans know it, perhaps. But ask the 1 billion in China whether "communism as most know it" means "USSR". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.188.138.63 (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Have you any other examples of this? In particular, any from the article? If so, they need to be addressed. However, the quote you pick out is a comment on this discussion page, and was incidentally written over a year ago. Warofdreams talk 02:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

the Continuity of the Fourth International and its World Congresses

There was a crisis in the leadership of the 4th International between Trotsky's death and criticism of "Pabloism" but,

as it never has been dissolved, after partial reunification of the majority of members of the International, the new USec/USFI is the de facto and de jure Organizational continuity and rightful successor to ISFI which has been established LONG BEFORE THE SPLIT by the 4th International as its core instrument for global organization

Of course, some groups remain outside of this partial reunification, refusing to reunite but continuing the legacy of the 4th int'l on their own, as they believe that the "errors" that were the cause of their splitting remain unrectified, that's why I further move

that a template be created for a simplified "family tree" of Trotskyist groups stemming from the Fourth International to show the provenance of these groups, their scattering and later realignments and regroupments.

But for the purposes of continuity, in my opinion, the reunified 4th Int'l should be incorporated with the rest of the article with consolidated history of the 4th International after Trotsky's death; OR, BETTER, a summary be given in the article and further elaboration (of the Trotskyist diaspora) spun-off into a new article.

so that the general outline of the post-merge article would be:

Historical Background
1st world congress
2nd world congress
-After Trotsky's death
    	--overview of the crisis, consequences and subsequent split (continuing)
    	--partial reunification
    	--Link to Organizations stemming from the Fourth International   /optional/
5th world congress
6th
7th
etc...
Impact/Legacy
Today
Criticisms

—-— .:Seth Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 10:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. But.. we should separate our these two proposals. The latter will be harder to do technically, and very messy.

--Sam has posted the comment above to Talk:reunified Fourth International as motivation for his proposed merger. I support the merge, but think we should dicuss it on this page rather than on the reunified page. --Duncan 16:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, the 4th international tree is a separate, but related proposal

update, i saw User:Warofdreams/Sandbox and it gave me some idea to work on a Trotskyist TREE

—-— .:Seth Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs)

This all seems to be taking the article in the direction of accepting that the current USFI is the Fourth International. That is a point of view, and one with some justification, but it is by no means a neutral point of view. The practice with other "refounded" internationals is to keep the articles seperate, as with the Second International and the Socialist International. As there is a serious dispute as to whether it is the same organisation, I can't see how we can maintain a neutral point of view in an article which attempts to regard them as such. On the second idea of a timeline of splits, this sounds very promising. Why not make a start, so that we can then collaboratively flesh it out? Warofdreams talk 19:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Support merge. See the similar debate above. In contradiction to the Second International, which dissolved in 1916, the Fourth International never dissolved - the same organisation still exists and has existed continuously. That there have been several splits and accusations of no longer representing the "real" Fourth International is another matter, which does not question the organisational existence of the International. Bertilvidet 20:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

the other organizations that derive from the 4th int'l just question the role of the international today, not exactly the continuity as an organization but the continuity of its ideals, so to be completely neutral, i think we need to reflect the fact that the 4th int'l never ceased to exist and stop giving in to sectarian ideas that it "died" along the way —-— .:Seth Nimbosa:.

Bertilvidet is correct that the FI did not become dormant: the parties that supported the IC were suspended by the IS. The legal continuity of the body was unbroken. At reunification, a new organisational was not founded: many of the IC sections had already resumed their participation in the FI, and the reunification simply completed that. The bank accounts, offices, legal bequests, the minutes books, the sequential ordering of congresses -- all of that was unbroken. At reunification, all the sections of 1953 were reunified other than the SLL and the PCI. --Duncan 09:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the IS regarded itself as representing the leadership of the FI - and the legal position is of interest. But I still remain very doubtful that we can have an article written with a neutral point of view which accepts the USFI's view on the existence of the FI. The two separate articles, on the other hand, deal with this in a manner which appears uncontroversial. Could someone please explain what, exactly, they feel is wrong with the current set-up - besides personal opinions that the USFI is the FI, which while they may well be justified, are certainly not undisputed. Warofdreams talk 01:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I move that we submit this to a vote,

or better if we have a scholar on the subject to guide us, but i guess no fact can change our personal opinion, and we all happen to have very strong opinions indeed, although to NOTE, I am proposing this merge not because i am party to any of the Trotskyist groups nor do i have any interest in joining any related movement soon, nor do I favor any such group either. I am just assessing the facts and suggested a logical presentation of the article.

The main point, for me, in merging the article, is the question where did the Fouth International go after 1953? (although the answer to that is still not clear until well after 1963) This is also my main motivation for possibly starting sometime soon a Tree of trotskyist groups.

—-— .:Seth Nimbosa:. 04:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

On Warofdreams' comment: There's a difference between accepting the notion that the reunified FI is the organisational continuity of the FI of 1953, and FI's view on whether or not it is political continuity of the FI. The IS was elected by the world congress. The IC sections did not leave the FI at any point. They established the IC as an alternative pole of leadership for the sections that supported it: it was a public faction. The IS suspended them: they were not expelled and the IS did not set up any new organisation: In Paris and Brussels things were much the same. The IC members of the IS Bureau did not challenge the suspention, or hold a 'provisional' IS meeting; nor did the IC groups organise a 'World Congress'. At no point did the IC claim to be the FI of 1938. The rump IC of the SEPs still does not; it clearly dates itself from 1953. If we accept that the FI of 1938 is the same organisation that split in 1953, then when the two parts of the international came together, where was the break? When IC sections came back into participation, the organisations they came into was recognisably those of the IS. None of the IC structures were retained. The Secretariat was renamed, but it, the IEC and other structures were all those of the IS. The publication of Quatrième Internationale was unbroken, and the numbering of that journal and the World Congresses was continuous. I don't see any basis for suggesting the organisational continuity was broken. Elsewhere in Wikipedia, we use the term Catholic Church to describe the church of Rome, while noting that not all accept that the Pope leads the true Catholic Chruch. I thuink the same approach will allow a NPOV solution to this discussion. --Duncan 08:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, again it is relevant that the IC never claimed to be the FI of 1938. However, Cannon unequivocally denied that the IS was. Our article could certainly use more detail on this, but it correctly does not claim that either side was widely acclaimed as being the FI, nor that the two groupings were necessarily two factions of a single surviving FI - certainly, Cannon would not have recognised this description in the mid-50s. As you say, the reunified group kept the structures of the IS, and so its claim to be the FI seems to me to be at least as good as that of the IS - but as our article states, it is very unusual for any other Trotskyist international to accept it as the FI. The Catholic Church comparison is not unfair, but here we can look to common usage - of course, our article does not claim that the Pope leads the "true Catholic Church", but both in common belief and in much scholarly analysis, the history of the Catholic Church is traced down to the current organisation. The same cannot be said of the Fourth International. Warofdreams talk 00:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

exactly, in the same way Roman gens patricians and philosophers argue that Rome is no longer Rome after the virtual dictatorship of the Caesars, but we cannot argue against the historical continuity of Rome even after the split with Constantinople, its just that the ideological and philosophical foundations of the Roman Republic eventually gave way to that of an Empire

i Strongly Agree to a merge for the continuity of the history of the fourth intrnational --124.105.247.83 03:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making this your first edit to Wikipedia. I've replied to the substantive point below. Out of interest, how did you find this debate? Warofdreams talk 00:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

;-) --Duncan 10:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, Rome is still Rome even after the dictatorship of the Caesars; despite numerous complaints from prominent Roman gens and even philosophers that Rome is no longer Rome, the continuity of Rome as a political entity continued until its final conquest by the barbarians from the northwest in the fifth century, though Rome, the Political Ideology of a Republic has long withered out

in the same way we still do not know how the Fourth International will finish out, but we know how its history and legacy went on, and we can clarify this dichotomy of ideological claims and organizational continuity in the merged article

for example straight from the current article itself:

"The reunified Fourth International (sometimes known as the United Secretariat of the Fourth International or USFI) is the only current with direct organisational continuity to the original Fourth International at an international level. The 1963 congress reunified the majorities of all but two of the national sections of the Fourth International. It is also the only current to have continuously presented itself as "the" Fourth International. It is the largest current and leaders of some other Trotskyist Internationals occasionally refer to it as "the Fourth International": ICFI secretary Gerry Healy, when proposing reunification discussions in the 1970s, described it as "the Fourth International"; the International Socialist Tendency also usually refers to it in this way but does not accept that the FI can claim political continuity with the FI of Trotsky."

—-— .:Seth Nimbosa:. 22:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I rather suspect that the claim that "Rome is no longer Rome" was for rhetorical purposes only. Again, the quote from the article give the evidence in support of the USFI's case to be the FI. It does not show whether we can produce an NPOV article whose structure supports the USFI's case. Warofdreams talk 00:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

YES, I believe we can present the article in a way that does not negate or deny the independent organizations that trace their origin to the Fourth International also, it depends upon the presentation, or wording of the final article, though I myself am not exactly experienced doing that POINT-OF-VIEW thing here in wikipedia, what passes and what does not.

AGAIN, we need careful wording

—-— .:Seth Nimbosa:.03:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the wording that Seth reproduces shows how we can produce an NPOV article. We can use that form of words to note that the FI and the reunified FI are organisationally continuous and identical. I wonder, should we rework that second into something headed 'Continuity' and explain that while the FI is organisationally continuous, some currents feel that the political coninuity has been lost. I think it's pretty simple. We could then merged the 'Unity discussions continue' section in this article in with the sections that update the story from one congress to the next. If the page might then become too large, we could prodice separate pages for each congress and then summarise and link to them from this page. --Duncan 10:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've given this some further thought, and I think the question we need to answer is whether the USFI group is commonly described as being the Fourth International. If we can say that it is, then it would be fair to merge. If it is more commonly described as being a separate organisation, or as one of many Fourth Internationals, then a merge would be inappropriate. We have already investigated the attitudes of some other currents to the USFI; can we find some other representative opinions to enable us to come to a consensus about this? Warofdreams talk 17:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it will be the case that present tense references to the the Fourth International are overwhelmingly to the reunified FI. I'm not sure if that's a totally solid rule of thumb for other pages. Again, consider the comparison with the church of Rome: most references to the catholic church refer to the Roman church. Few of those references will make the point that it, and not other churches, are "the" Catholic church. Other churches will dispute the claim, and consider themselves to be the "the" Catholic church. However, it will be overwhelemingly the case that references to the Catholic church refer to Rome. Furthermore, many referenced to the Catholic Church describe it as the Roman Catholic Church. One name does not negate another. Similarly, FI statements are always made by bodies of the FI, for example, by a congress, section, bureau, committee or secretariat. These don't mean that they are separate from the FI, only that the habit of the FI is to make it clear where policies are adopted. So, for example, if there are many references to the leadership of the reunified FI as both the "United Secretariat" of the FI and as "the FI", that should not sway us because there may be more references to "Roman catholic" than to "catholic". So, let's look for some present tense examples of the FI and see to which organisation they refer. --Duncan 13:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't what the present tense references to the Fourth International are to, it is whether it is generally believed that the USFI is the FI. Yes, it shouldn't matter whether it is often referred to by other names, but it does need to be widely thought of as the Fourth International, just as the Roman Catholic Church is widely thought of as the Catholic Church. An example: present tense references to the Liberal Party in the UK will be to the Liberal Party (UK, 1989). But it's not generally recognised as being the same as the historic Liberal Party, so there are separate articles. Warofdreams talk 01:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's quite right. The organisational continuity in the FI is unbroken. The Liberal Party (UK, 1989) has no organisational continuity. So the comparison with that organisation is really with the Fourth International (ICR), which has no organisational continuity with the FI. Similarly, the Liberal Party (UK) can be written of in the past tense, which the FI cannot. --Duncan 13:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is the similarity. The [Continuing] Liberal Party claims that it has organisational continuity with the historic Liberal Party and that the two groups should be spoken of as one still existing whole. This claim is highly dubious, and is not widely accepted by people outside the [Continuing] Liberal Party, and so we have separate articles. Your perspective on the Liberal Party is shared by some people on the question of the continuation of the FI; the question is how widespread that view is. That's why, to my mind, the benchmark for the proposed merge here is whether other organisations see the USFI as being the Fourth International. Warofdreams talk 18:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think you're mistaken. I just googled the Liberal party. Their metadata days "Formed in 1989 under the leadership of Michael Medowcroft by a rump who rejected the merger with the Social Democrats that formed the Liberal Democrats." I think the comparison there really is with the ICFI and Lambertists. You make a good point about current usage, but I think it would be mistaken to limit ourselves to the views of organisations. Firstly, few organizations outside the FI will separate their assessment of the organisational and political continuity. Second, organizations are not the only references: academics for example also express opinions. THird, other organisations may have a POV. In terms of those other organisations, the IST, CWI, WRP, DSP certainly have made statements describing the reunified FI as the FI. --Duncan 08:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The "metadata" is the Open Directory description. I can hardly imagine the group describing themselves as a "rump"! I agree that we should give strong consideration to the views of those outside the Trotskyist tradition (while remembering that they may also have a particular POV). Indeed, I was expecting that to be the focus of this ongoing discussion. Rather than prejudging what they will take into account, let's check out some examples.

Picking out the first hits for "fourth international" and "trotskyist" from Google Books which discuss some part of the post-63 period and are not written by known members of a Trotskyist group, the first (amusingly entitled Trotskyist Terrorist International) appears to identify the FI with the USFI.[5]. The second, the 1987 Yearbook on International Communist Affairs identifies the FI with both the ICFI and the USFI;[6] the third, Violence and the Latin American Revolutionaries, mentions three internationals as representing "factions" of the FI.[7]

I could go through more, but already there seems a general pattern, (1) of pretty poor research and general confusion as to the nature of the FI, and (2) of identification of the continuation of the FI as lying in various places, typically including but not restricted to the USFI. Does this sound a fair summary? Warofdreams talk 01:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's enought data to make a judegment on, but it sounds like a step in the right direction. I did a similar search on Google Scholar, and found a different pattern. I want to do to King's College next week to get into JSTOR, which has the full text, and I'll produce an analysis of 30 or so mentions. --Duncan 08:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay with this: it is on my to-do list!--Duncan 21:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

oppose merge The 4th international split into many groups each claiming to be the rightful heirs of the trotskyist method. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 17:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Is method the same thing? The discussion above suggest that we should note the plurality of Trotskyist groups. Clearly, Troskyist methods is as widespread as thye Holy ghost. However, this article is not about Trotskyism, but about the Fourth International. This discussion is about whether it has been organisationally continuous. --Duncan 20:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fourthinternational1959.jpg

Image:Fourthinternational1959.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorted. --Duncan 21:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Scope of the reunification

Warofdreams has reverted an edit of mine, I which I removed the phrase 'majorities of' from the article where we explain that the reunification involved all the sections of the FI, other than the SLL and the OCI. His edit comments that most of the parties split, so we should write of majorities. Actually, that is mistaken. Most of the sections went through the 1953 split intact, and either went with the IC or the IS. At the time of reunification, the only countries in which both the IC and the IS had sections were Britain and France, and it was in those countries that was no reunification of the two public factions. Therefore the reunification was not between the 'majorities of the sections' but between all the sections on both sides, other than the OCI and SLL. I will restore the edit. --Duncan (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. is a useful example here; the section split in 1953. The IS side had dissolved by 1963, but a dissenting minority refused to join the USFI and instead tried to stay with the IC (unsuccessfully). Elsewhere, the Posadists had left. Claiming "The 1963 congress reunified all the national sections of the Fourth International, other than the SLL and OCI" is confused at best, and to a straightforward reading is inaccurate. If you are not happy with the "majorities of the sections", then perhaps we could agree to just omit this sentence - it's not really vital to the article, and the position in 1963 is better explained in the body of the article (and could there list the sections which did join with the IS). Warofdreams talk 00:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I think Duncan has it correctly. Look, I'm not a USFI supporter. But, clearly, if you look at the 1963 reunification of the IS and the majority of the IC, you have a "reunification" of "all" national sections of the FI. Formally it's correct. A small minority here and there doesn't detract from the intent or general accuracy of the statement. In fact, Posadas' group which had been shrinking tremendously since 1959, essentially almost disappeared in this period. Secondly, and FAR more importantly, the 1963 process didn't really end, and, in 1965, Moreno's whole organization joined the USFI. Does this make it THE FI? No, not at all. But in this period of the mid to late 1960s, the overwhelming majority of those that considered themselves Trotskyist were in the ranks of the USFI. This doesn't denigrate very large non-USFI secitons, whether that be the OCI in France (which, like the SLL, was actually very small in 1963) or rather the growth of the IC/OCRFI and other international currents.DavidMIA (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the logic. Even a small minority does detract from the accuracy of the statement. Either way, we need something referenced. What Moreno's group did in 1965 is neither here nor there, as this is about a statement as to what happened in 1963. But I do not support including an unreferenced statement because it is sort of, in some ways, probably true-ish.

Perhaps the answer is to find a reliable reference saying something like the vast majority of Trotskyists were in the USFI for the few years after 1960s. I don't doubt the accuracy of this, and I'd certainly support adding this if we can find a decent reference. Warofdreams talk 17:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If the US is an example, then it supports the existing edit. The Socialist Union was not a section of the Fourth International, and was not recognised as such by the International Secretariat. It initially stood in sympathy with the International, but sympathising groups are not sections. The Posadist organisations were tiny, but they were not sections of the Fourth International in 1963, nor did they claim to be: they later established a new International. There's a big difference between talking about the majorities of sections, rather than talking about sections. Firstly, the decision to reunify was taken by whole organisations, and not by majorities. Secondly, none of the sections which reunified split at the time of reunification, or over reunification. Perhaps a small minority might make a difference (but the article does not claim there was no opposition to reunification), but as far as I can see there were no such small minorities which split in opposition to the reunification. There were other disputes after reunification when, for example, the RT was expelled from the SWP and also Charlie van Gelderan and others left the SLL in support of the reunification. That also does not contradict the fact that the whole SWP, including the RT, reunified with the rest of the world movement in 1963 and so did all the other sections, other than the SLL and OCI. As for references, there are many references to say that the sections reunified, and that the OCI and SLL did not. What other reference can there be? --Duncan (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame to see that, almost two months on, there is still no reference for this statement. I've added a {{fact}} tag, and hope to see a reference very soon. Something published by the USFI would be of use, because then we could source the opinion. Of course, if you can find a reliable, independent source which states this, it can stand, but I do not believe it to be an impartial description. Warofdreams talk 09:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the tag. So you're looking for a statement that says that something that did not happen, didn't happen, despite the fact that so references suggested that it did. The best references here are the documents of the OCI/SLL IC, which list the organisations that stayed with the IC. Of those that attended the 1965 meeting of the IC, only the OCI and SLL has been sections of the IC or of the IS. If any of the other sections of the IC or IS has not taken part in the reunification, then the IC or the Posadas group would have mentioned it. or the Sparts... --Duncan (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a related tag to the section previously under dispute, and to be clear, this is the core of what I would like to be cited. A citation for the first statement I added might well also cover this; alternatively, a citation for the second might well clarify the first. What I'm looking for is quite straightforward - a reference which states what is said in the article - absolutely not a list of groups and some original synthesis to produce a new claim. If this doesn't exist, then we need to state what is in the references available and avoiding drawing our own conclusions in the article. Warofdreams talk 22:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the referenced to the ISR, which reviews the Posadas, healy and Lambert cases against the reunification. No-one else is mentioned in any of the documents from that time. I'm curious. What do you think actually happened? After 56 there was a slow thaw in the split. Some of the groups in the IC reconnected with the IS groups less formally. In India and Japan the groups reunified, and the convergence on Cuba really sealed the dynamic. Posadas' groups left the IS. Then there was the reunification. It's clear from the documents at the time that no-one is referred as not taking part, other than Posadas and then the IC sections in France and Britain. The IS was formed by the British, French, New Zealand and Swiss sections. They were joined by the Indian, Chinese (in exile), Dutch and German. Of course the Canadian group joined and the SWP was there too, and there were the sympathising groups in Latin America around Moreno. Other than the SLL and OCI, all of those organisations came into the reunification. On the IS side, the list is too long to review, but it;s less likely that a section of the IS would have opposed reunification. --Duncan (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, I'm happy with the new text. It seems clear and is referenced. I'm delighted to see how easily this has been resolved! I agree with your summary immediately above and understand that you felt that the original text meant the same thing, but it was subject to multiple interpretations and put it in terms which a supporter of the IC or other tendencies would not have recognised. Warofdreams talk 23:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I am not happy with this. 'Leading figures claim' suggests that there is an alternative view, that the IS and IC did not merge. No-one holds that view, as ar as I know. Everyone accepts that the IS sections and all the IC sections other than the SLL and OCI reunified. So I need to find another reference, maybe the Alexander book, to add to Dobbs and Hansen.--Duncan (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Moreno reunifed in 63, not in 65.

David made a comment before which suggested that Moreno came into the reunification only in 1965. I think that's mistaken, and I wanted to offer this reference from International Trotskyism, 1929-1985 By Robert Jackson Alexander (page 41) in support: [8]. The POR-PO was part of the IC, and took part in reunification. What happened in 1965 was the World Congress in Germany, which agreed the recognition of a new Argentine section formed by the merger of the FRIP and the POR-PO to form the PRT. But Moreno's leadership of both groups was continuous through that period. --Duncan (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Article Introduction

Someone changed the old introduction:

"The Fourth International (FI) is an international communist organisation which opposes both capitalism and Stalinism. Consisting of followers of Leon Trotsky, it is dedicated to helping the working class bring about socialism."

to

"The Fourth International (FI) is an international communist network of organizations of followers of Leon Trotsky opposing both capitalism and what it refers to as "Stalinism". Like other communist internationals, the FI's stated dedication is to helping the working class bring about socialism, but unlike these others, their common ideologies are all various forms of Trotskyism."

which wouldn't make any sense to a new reader, or at the very best, is completely confusing. I am giving back the old intro. 99.238.130.5 (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)