User talk:Rafaelgr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:


You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 22:37, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth International

With such a substantial change, I would suggest starting this on the Talk page, and then reworking the text with others. Your comments on this edit are mistaken: neither the ICFI nor the Posadists claim to be the FI of 1948. I can find no suggestions that the lambertists do, so please give some reference. --DuncanBCS 22:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is such a big deal, but here goes:

The ICFI and Lambertists both claim to be the fourth international, I don't know what you mean by the FI of 1948. I also don't know about the Posadistas, though the name of the organization is called the Fourth International, so that's at least prima facie evidence. The same goes for the Lambertistes, plus a quick look at their webpages shows that their groups refer to themselves as "sections of the fourth international"; Socialist Organizer says this right at the top of their front page. Their magazine (at least the Portuguese edition, A Verdade) is subtitled "Theoretical review of the Fourth International. As for the ICFI, their webpage describes them as "the leadership of the world socialist movement, the Fourth International founded by Leon Trotsky in 1938". Rafaelgr 22:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll grant that the situation with the Posadists is ambiguous. I'll take that out for now. Rafaelgr 23:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

On the ICFI: it claims to be the political leadership of the movement, but not the movement itself. The IC dates itself from 53 and, even after the reunification, stressed the need for the reconstruction of the FI.--DuncanBCS 21:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is what the article says. It seems to me that this is a distinction without a difference: If the ICFI is the leadership of the Fourth International, what does that mean the Fourth International is? Rafaelgr 21:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I has proposed a redraft at Talk:Fourth International. The general approach of the IC tradition is this: the Fourth International has divided organisationally and politically but it is not dead: at one end are the revisionist and liquidationist traitors, who follow the USFI; at the other end is the ICFI, whose leadership represents the political continuity of Trotskyism. The IC has always been careful on this: a great example is the useage here: notice terms like "sections of the International Committee". The way in which "Fourth International" and "world Trotskyist movement" are used show that the IC in practice considers itself to be the orthodox current of Fourth Internationalism, but not "the" Fourth International of 1938. --DuncanBCS 09:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Granted. My point still holds about the Lambertistes, though; there's a definite contrast there. Also I think you're mistaken in saying that the ICFI refers to the USFI as 'the fourth international.' Rafaelgr 16:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. Perhaps usage has changed? If that's the case, then it would be interesting to point out. The IC certainly has refered to the USFI as the FI occasionally: an example of such use is healy's in Marxism Versus Ultraleftism. More normal use suggests that the IC sees itself the sub-set of the FI defined by orthodox Trotkyism. I've read Alan Benjamin's article on the FI, but I would still like to see some resolution or document of theirs. I struggle to think that they really argue that only their sections are the Fourth International. Have you see anything?--DuncanBCS 17:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems pretty obvious to me. I've also just noticed "The Manifesto of the Fourth World Congress of the Fourth International" which seems (I've only skimmed it) to make no reference to the existence of Trotskyists outside of the Larmbertiste ISFI, even the customary gesture on regroupment seems to avoid the question. I don't find anything particularly remarkable about it, the Lambertistes are generally reckoned to be a particularly odd bunch, although the hypocrisy of Benjamin's reference to the USFI's support for Lula is pretty breathtaking even coming from these guys.
By the way, I just noticed some articles about the French left on WSWS that I think are a good example of how the ICFI talks about the Fourth International (the "15th Pabloist world congress" and all that). Could you please point out any references to the ICFI referring to the USFI as "the fourth international"? Rafaelgr 17:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Raphael. Thanks for the pointer towards the Manifesto. Personally, I find this surprising. I am a supporter of the British USFI group into which the UK Lambertist group merged from the mid-80s to the mid-90s. I think that tendency is now extinct in Britain, but at that time their positions was the the world trotskyist movement was fragmented, that the USFI was the mainstream, but that the FI needed to be reconstructed [in essence, the same position as in 1974]. This is a real departure. On the ICFI: a clear example is the approach from Healy to the USFI in the 1970s, which is written about in Marxism Vs. Ultraleftism (which the US SWP have in print). However, normal use in the ICFI (which is where I started off in ther Healy days) was not that the USFI was 'the' FI, but that the FI had fragmented and the ICFI was the political continuity of the FI, which led the orthodox sections of the FI [in essence, the same position as in 1953]. I still note that the ICFI refers to sections of the IC and conferences of the IC, and to their organisations asstarting in 1953. They, unlike the Lambertists, do not seem to claim they are the FI of 1938. (A comparison: the Mormons do not claim to be the one, apostolic and catholic church, byt they do claim to be the authentic Christians). --DuncanBCS 10:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antiwar template

Rafaelgr,

I have an honest question for you. You state that you are a member of both the International Socialist Organization, and the Campus Antiwar Network. Dkalkin is a self-proclaimed follower of Trotskyism. As such, where is there vandalism in listing them under sources of opposition?

To not show them as "Sources of Opposition" is a bit disingenuous.

Since you are a Socialist, then are you not in opposition to democracy?

V/R

160.149.13.69

What an astonishing comment. Are we self-proclaimed cowards, too? Also, although I doubt you'll get a chance to, please sign your contributions with four tildes and add new discussion at the end of talk pages; it makes things easier for everyone. Rafaelgr 20:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure why the comment is so astonishing. If the people who are actively maintaining the Anti-war Topics follow Socialism and Trotshyism should those reasons not be listed under the "sources of opposition" section? To not list it seems to serve an activist agenda which is listed as a form of vandalism as well. Neither you nor Dkalkin listed yourselves as cowards so you are not self-proclaimed to my knowledge. That being said, it is still a valid reason that some people have for opposing war.

In addition, if the list of topics is going to have "conscientious objector", should it also not have "draft dodger" for equal viewpoints so as not to slant towards an activist agenda?

One last question. As a member of the "Campus Anti-War Network" are you against the Constitution of the United States? Article I, Section 8, calls for Congress "To raise and support Armies..." for the "Common Defense" of the United States. Military recruitment supports this end, and yet your organization harasses your own military and impeads upon the directives of the established rule of law.

V/R 160.149.13.69

Since of course the common defense is all that the US military concerns itself with. Rafaelgr 03:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Rafaelgr,

   You didn't address the question.  Also, what else besides the "common defense" do you see as part of the miltary's scope?

For the record, those in the military swear to "support/uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States". This applies regardless of which political party is in the White House. If you don't like how they are implemented, address it with the polititians. To attempt to undermine our national military system, because you don't like the actions of the current administration seems awfully shortsighted. 10 years from now, we will still need a miltary as part of the National Defense. An anti-recruitment network is not in the best interests of the "common defense" as called for in the Constitution. Just some thoughts. If you have a greater motive besides politics for trying to undermine our nation's security forces, I'd like to hear (or in this case read) what your reasoning is.

Thanks.

Have a happy 4th of July.

V/R 160.149.77.68 05:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISO & IST

Hi, Just wanted to say that it's good to see another member with an account here. I've been trying and failing to keep the ISO article from being subject to constant revert wars between anarchists and members. Perhaps you'll be better at finding some kind of balance.

Good luck with V/R above. He's quite reasonable compared to some, though - take a look at my quotes section.

Kalkin 22:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/f/User_talk%7ERafaelgr_6cb8.html"