Talk:International Socialists (Canada)/Archive 1

SASWI
Students Against Sanctions and War in Iraq

What role did the IS play in SASWI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.134.55 (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2005‎

Student Group
The greater part of IS recruitment and activism had been concentrated on university campuses, so much so that many consider the organization a student group. IS has been particularly active at the University of Toronto and Carleton University in Ottawa. Other IS activists joined The Varsity, a student newspaper, CIUT, the campus radio station, and the Association of Part-time Undergraduate Students (APUS). Together with IS supporters in the USWA and CUPE (a campus union local representing teaching assistants), the IS appeared to be playing a more prominent role at the university. However, since 2003 the group's influence on campus has declined and it now retains only its union positions, although as a registered campus group it continues to use U of T facilities for meetings and its annual Marxism conference. Its postering activity on campus has also declined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.87.196 (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2005‎


 * The IS is no longer dominated by students, except in Ottawa/Gatineau and to a lesser extent, Montreal. Its student base in Toronto has all but disappeared. Its largest student presence is at Carleton University in Ottawa where it is possibly the most influential political organization. Erin Stevens is the student union Vice President of student issues. Lincoln Adison and Doug Nesbitt are leading members of the Student Coalition Against War. They also have members in Opirg-Carleton and Opirg-Ottawa. It has a smaller presence at the University of Ottawa and the Cégeps in Hull. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.58.74 (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2006‎

Caution
This article contains much exaggeration designed to make IS (Canada) seem important when it is a tiny, marginal and irrelevant political club based around personalities, such as Abbie Bakan, Paul Kellogg and Carolyn Egan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.87.196 (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2005‎

This may be the best way to avoid a constant cut and paste war. If changes are made then please keep the NPOV alert for this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.84.41 (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2005

I see no debate here, if you want community comment the least you should do is clearly state your viewpoints on this discussion page and try to discuss things first. --fvw *  05:14, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

When you are putting up lies, and backing them up with lies by a bias 'journalist' at NOW magazine, it still is a lie. I have not removed all the criticisms, as you can see, while others keep on putting in comments that are blatently inaccurate, such as saying that SPHR does not have public meetings. No other page, even OCAPs, has so much time committed to different organizations opinions. That is not what an encyclopedia is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.84.41 (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2005‎

Response
Please read the NPOV policy. NPOV does *NOT* mean that no opinions or criticisms can appear. Citing a published source is completely consistent with Wikipedia policies. If you don't think criticism appears in articles I suggest you read more Wikipedia articles, particularly those on political organizations and topics. Please do not remove things just because they quote individuals or organizations the IS doesn't like.

As for Toronto SPHR. You can easily disprove the allegation by saying when the next public membership meeting (as opposed to a public forum) of Toronto SPHR is but members of York SPHR and other groups like Al-Awda have accused Toronto SPHR of being secretive, not having open membership and shutting out people critical of the IS. 67.70.95.17 18:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RESPONSE
In order to stop this back and forth I have left the material that I believe inaccurate and malicious but have included the NPOV warning because of the contentious material. Please keep this here in order to avoid the cut and paste battle.

Two points will be made: Firstly, quoting an opinionative article from NOW magazine that is biased and inaccurate is not standard either on Wikipedia or other scholarly encylcopedias. In fact the entire criticism section is full of very limited opinion and with a tone that is more appopriate on the pages of Workers Vanguard than an encylopedic website.

Secondly, in reference to SPHR, the passage written refers to public meetings, not public members meetings. In respect to the organizational structure of SPHR Toronto, the organizing committee is made of representatives from the various chapters across Toronto, including U of T, U of T Mississauga, and York. U of T's groups decide on their representatives democratically, and I would hope York does as well. In fact, only one IS member is on the committee (how dominating!) As to certain people being pushed away because they are not "pro-IS" this is baseless. Recently, an individual from York was expelled because of repeated complaints of harrasment by Muslim women and this was a decision initiated not by any IS member, but someone originating from SPHR Montreal.

I have looked at various poltical entries on Wikipedia and none spend to much time on sectarian criticisms. This amount of verbiage here is not often paralleled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.84.41 (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2005‎

Criticism in articles
Take a look at Communist Party USA, Lyndon LaRouche, New Alliance Party, Workers Revolutionary Party, J. Posadas, Socialist Workers Party (USA) and more. Criticisms are standard in wikipedia and there's no reason why IS Canada should be immune. 67.70.95.17 00:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Judging from the way the British SWP behaves, I am sure that everything in it is quite accurate. But it just reads like the reporting of a lot of petty feuds. I did look at the Lyndon LaRouche page. It didn't seem to have descended into that kind of pettiness and yet it too is disputed. Dejvid 00:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

After a little thought I think it was unwise for me to use the word petty. These kind of disputes are very important to those involved but of little interest to anyone else. Hence our sources of information about them will come solely from those involved. Links to pages hostile to the IS seem more appropriate to me. Dejvid 11:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now Magazine is Toronto's version of the Village Voice (ie mainstream "left" newspaper) with a cirulation of around 100,000 or so so I think an article carried in its pages has a bit more weight than one in Socialist Worker or Workers' Vanguard and merits quoting. 70.50.117.136 19:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now Magazine is a popular magazine with a much higher distribution then Socialist Worker, I never contested that. However, it would be a stretch to claim that all its journalists demonstrate the scruples of objective reporting. Mike Smith, the author of the cited article, is hardily an fair source of information. Smith is a long time supporter of OCAP who has had a political grudge toward the IS for a while. Although entitled to his views it does not necessarily validate his article as truth. The fact that NOW gives him a regular column is not an endorsment of his take on the events. As stated before, and as someone who was actually at the event, I think Smith blurs the facts to support his larger feelings about the IS.Serious 01:59, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is valid to cite a published account, particularly one in a mass circulation newspaper, of an event related to the subject of an article. 70.50.122.114 02:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If it's factual, there's no reason you can't include critisizm. --Spinboy 21:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Three quick questions... 1. Does the NOW citation really add anything to this article, or is it just rehashing Toronto scene gossip from almost a year ago? I suspect the latter. 2. Can anyone actually refute the cited statements, or merely object to their being printed? 3. Since when is "OCAP supporter" synonymous with "liar"? Oh, and according to the Wikipedia article on NOW, the magazine's readership is closer to 300,000. --Mar 26 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.175.62 (talk) 08:18, 27 March 2005‎

I did not want to put another NPOV in the criticism section but I felt I had no choice. Although I understand people may have their qualms with the IS an encyclopedic entry should not be the place to list a laundary list of quotes, anecdotes, and personal testimonies as fact. Academic encyclopedias would not get away with this, as fact checking is of a premium. In fact it appears only entries on leftist organizations seem to be the most dedicated to this type of entry making. It hardly dispells the idea that leftists are self-destructive, sectarian, and prone to splits. I am not going to remove the contents, but if someone tries to remove the NPOV I will replace it. One should remember that removing an NPOV more then twice is grounds for expulsion from Wiki, so please refrain.Serious 03:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why did AndyL remove this sentence when it's perfectly factual?: "Bakan and McNally had been together since the 1970s but divorced in the mid-1980s"

As for Serious's comments, not having any criticism in the article would make it non-neutral. Which criticisms, if any, are you willing to accept? I suspect none. I suspect your preference is to remove any information that might put the IS in a bad light. I'm sorry serious but Wikipedia is not a propaganda vehicle for the IS or any group. You can't just put up an NPOV notice without suggesting an alternative. 70.49.88.25 13:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If someone is willing to put a synthesized paragraph on the criticisms that exist of the IS that is fine, and we can work from there. But as of now people are just listing things like a laundary list. NO OTHER entry outside far left ones are like this. An encyclopedic entry is not suppose to be a place to put your latest disagreement with the IS. Although my sympathies are obviously with the IS it is rediculous that the largest section is criticisms. However, I will not dispute having a shorter, more synthesized set of criticisms, but the way it is going this is no longer an encyclopedic entry and it is reflecting the worst criticisms that people have of Wiki-type sites. It is also probablematic that everything is done anonymously (I know this is the case for me to)which further discredits the value of a lot of this entry. Anyways, if someone wants to suggest an alternative paragraph that would be great. As you can note I don't have the time to rip up other organizations (and trust me it could be done with groups like OCAP, the New Socialists, etc. etc.) and I don't believe that an encyclopedia is the place to do it. So to respond to my nameless critic's comments, I do think some criticism is fine (though it should not be the largest section) and secondly, Wikipedia should not be a propaganda vehicle for anyone, including those who want to use this as a forum to bash the IS because they can't get a big hearing with that elsewhere.Serious 03:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reality check
International Socialists (Canada) is an entryist organization that plays a pernicious role, paralyzing legitimate student organizations and union locals until expelled, its usual fate. It has, perhaps, 20 or so active members and a number of fellow travellers. The notion that it has 400 members is absurd. Some people will donate a little money to support its propaganda paper, Socialist Worker.

IS and the anti-war front groups it established had no influence on Liberal government policy in Canada with respect to Iraq, which was driven by public opinion in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada as the Liberals approached a national election, and by Prime Minister Jean Chretien's personal dislike of US war plans.

In terms of both entryist methods and rhetoric (it glorifies the Bolsheviks), IS plays a regressive and negative role in student groups and union locals. As a Trotskyist organization, IS justifies the Kronstadt massacre and looks forward to armed struggle and revolution. In fact, it is it led by university and college teachers with nice pension plans, a few gullible ex-students who hang onto student organization jobs and a few people who have been given sinecures in unions at a low level. It is a tiny middle class sect with puffed up rhetoric that sets up web-site front groups and pretends to be Tribune of the People.


 * I'm neither a member nor a supporter of the IS and have my own criticisms of them -- though I've generally stayed out of the disputes on this page and edited here for syntax and wikilinks etc rather than for content I am going to respond to a few points made above. While the IS has been accused of exaggerating its size they clearly have far more than 20 members given the fact that several hundred people attend their annual Marxism event and also given by the fact that they have several branches in Toronto and a number of branches across Canada. My guesstimate is that they have four or five hundred dues paying members, half of whom are "active" members who regularly attend meetings and sell the paper, though my estimate is on the conservative side.


 * Secondly, you misunderstand the concept of entryism. I suggest you read the article on that topic. The concept related specifically to entryism into social democratic and labour parties. While the IS calls for a vote for the NDP and while its members have occasionally volunteered in election campaigns (eg David Miller's mayoralty campaign - though that wasn't officially an NDP campaign), their members are not, in my experience, NDP members. AndyL 15:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * IS active membership is very very small -- probably no more than 20 to 30 people, if that. They are the same people who give talks at the annual Marxism gathering and write in Socialist Worker.


 * IS is entryist insofar as it makes a practice of sending recruits into larger, legitimate student organizations and union locals and then attempting to have those organizations adopt the IS line, as if there were a spontaneous convergence of political objectives among these disparate organizations! This "enter-and-turn" method has failed. It has not been applied to the NDP because the NDP would almost certainly expell the entryists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.87.196 (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2005‎

What is your source for your claim that the IS has "no more than 20 or 30 people"? You seem to be assuming that the only members are those who "give talks... and write in "Socialist Worker". What is the basis of this assumption? Why do you assume that for every member who writes an article or gives a talk there would not be several who do not do such things? I'm not a member or supporter of the IS but it strikes me that a) your estimate is based on your own assumptions, not any citable sources and b) your estimate is based on the highly dubious assumption that you can only be a member of the IS if you give talks at Marxism and/or write articles in Socialist Worker.AndyL 13:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * AndyL is right. Your "20-30" figures are based on complete guesswork. There are at least 39 "active" members who spoke at Marxism 2005 according to my count (see their website). And for the record, a number of speakers at Marxism and contributors to Socialist Worker are not IS members - notably Ian Angus and John Riddell. As for IS "entryism", it is always pretty clear who the IS is at coalition meetings. Entryism means being secretive, like the Trotskyists in the French Communist Party back in the 1950s. Critics of the IS, if they actually want to make a legit complaint should try to move beyond poor guesswork and paranoia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.54.98 (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2005‎ (UTC)

Whoever said the above is correct. The vast majority of IS members do not give talks at Marxism or write for their newspaper. To assume that it is a requirement of membership to give talks at Marxism and write for the group's paper is a seriously faulty assumption. People who take leadership roles in the IS are just that, leaders. Why do you assume there wouldn't be many more people who are members but don't take leading roles and instead do things like attend meetings and sell the newspaper? In most political organizations followers outnumber leaders by 10 to 1 (which suggests based on your figures that the membership of the IS would be between 200 and 300). AndyL 17:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

20 or 30 members? That's hilarious. They have at least 30 members at Carleton University and probably another 20 floating around the rest of Ottawa. Maybe they are big in Ottawa, but its obvious they have a few hundred. ~Vapid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapid77 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 24 April 2006‎ (UTC)

...and Ben Isitt
I thought a link to Ben Isitt, an... at least recent-past IS member who had made a high-profile run for Mayor of Victoria and is now making a second, would be merited. Veenoghu disagreed, or maybe just disagreed with its placement as a /* See also */, which was a pretty styleless way to slip it in, it's true. But as probably the most electorally prominent ISer in Canada...

If we knew he had long since left the IS before his first mayoral candidacy, perhaps I'd agree the article needn't mention him... Samaritan 13:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposed for Deletion? An article about Canada's largest far-Left organization?
I don't know who recommended this page for deletion, or why, but I seriously doubt that it was done in an attempt to improve Wikipedia as a credible and comprehensive encyclopedia.

The International Socialists, whatever vices they may have, also happen to be the largest radical-left organization in Canada. Does anybody deny that? Some of us may bemoan it. But does anybody deny it?

They have been in existence for over 30 years, they have branches in several cities across Canada, and they are known to play a prominent role in several Canadian social movements, notably the student movement, the anti-war movement, and the pro-choice movement. Their early history is covered in the book, 'The Canadian Left: A Critical Analysis,' by historian, Norman Penner. They are the only currently existing organization other than the Communist Part of Canada whose history is documented on the Socialist History Project, a non-partisan scholarly resource on the history of Canadian socialism.

Lots of people dislike the role the I.S. plays. So, it is appropriate to have a section on "Criticisms of the I.S.," or something like that. But deletion of the article on the most prominent and the largest socialist organization in Canada? That makes no sense.

I worry that the proposal to delete is politically motivated, not motivated by a good-faith attempt to improve Wikipedia.

66.203.188.49 (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Steve.