Talk:French Turn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is highly suspect. It needs references, and much more --Duncan 03:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Suspected Orginal Research.

This stuff below is rather surprising. Can anyone supply references for this? --Duncan 03:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It was essentially over this view, combined with a growing revulsion at the Soviet Union, that Shachtman broke with Trotsky shortly before the latter's death in 1940. It bears acknowledgement, however, that Trotsky's writings around the time of his death strongly indicated that he was moving toward Shachtman's views, prompting speculation that had he lived Trotsky would have followed along the same trajectory as Shachtman. This belief is also supported by the fact that Trotsky's widow made clear her identification with Shachtman right up to her death in 1959. Indeed, considering Shachtman's role as a forefather of neoconservatism, combined with the actual content of the doctrine itself, the French Turn can quite easily be viewed as nothing less than the genesis of neoconservatism itself.

  • Jacrosse commented: For information on Shachtman's later identification thereof, and also of Trotsky's widow, probably best again is the discussion in the Glotzer biography, specifically of Natalia's resignation from the Fourth International. Thats interesting but for example can we find sources for some of these claims, or we cut them.
  1. It was partly over the French Turn "that Shachtman broke with Trotsky shortly before the latter's death in 1940"
  2. "Trotsky's writings around the time of his death strongly indicated that he was moving toward Shachtman's views": Surely Trotksy's last book, In Defense of Marxism, was the polemical record of a split in the International between those two? Does that indicate convergence?
  3. Who has made "speculation that had he lived Trotsky would have followed along the same trajectory as Shachtman"
  4. Who has argued that Natalia Sedov's "identification with Shachtman right up to her death in 1959" support the idea that Trotsky would have folowed this path? Since Trotsky had fought with Shachtman on the crucial questions of third campism, is this not an unusual opinion?
  5. Shachtman's role as a forefather of Neoconservatism is also disputed: cold war democrat, certainly, but neo-conservative?
  6. The view of the "French Turn can quite easily be viewed as nothing less than the genesis of neoconservatism" seems veru odd. Has anyone argues that Trotskyist are engaging in entry in the Republican movement?

Any suggestions? PLease do not simple refer to Glotzers book: one source for a disputed question is not enough. --Duncan 21:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why I'm against it

The entryism article only discusses actions and not ideas behind them, which are certainly critical, novel, and consequential enough in the case of the French Turn that it should merit its own article. For information on Shachtman's defense of the French Turn in the 30s see the volume of letters published by the Spartacist League "Dog Days: James P. Cannon vs. Max Shachtman in the Communist League of America 1931-1933". For information on Shachtman's later identification thereof, and also of Trotsky's widow, probably best again is the discussion in the Glotzer biography, specifically of Natalia's resignation from the Fourth International.--Jacrosse 17:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Since the dominant form of entrism is that by Trotskyists, and since that is founded on the French Turn, I do think it need more detail. However, I cannot see why we need to explain the French Turn twice; not do I see how Entrism would be stronger is we extracted the discussion of the French Turn onto a separate page. --Duncan 21:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
You can merge it then if you like, but please don't subtract any information.--Jacrosse 16:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course, I will subtract any orignal research. That is Wikipedia's policy. --Duncan 17:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1931?

I have looked through the 'Dog Days' book referenced by Jacross, and cannot find a reference to Trotsky advoacting entry into the SFIO in 1931, or at any other time in the period covered by the volume. Can anyone find this reference? If not, I will remove it as original research. --Duncan 21:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical "French Turn"

I think this article needs to focus primarily on the historical French Turn (the entry by Trotskyists into the SFIO during the Leon Blum period). The discussion of subsequent forms of entryism that are compared to the French Turn put in a conclusion and/or placed on the entryism page. Probably one of the best (least polemical) references for this that comes to mind is a volume of Isaac Deutscher's Trotsky biography (I believe it's the second volume). If there are no objections, I could write out a short history of the original French Turn. metzerly 03:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • That's a great idea. I think that either [a] this page should be a purely historical account of the turn in France or [b] merged into Entrism if it's to be an account of that. At the moment, we have a highly original account of the turn, and equally originally, context. If you prepare your text, then I will start to move the non-historical and original material off this page. --Duncan 15:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Great. I'll work on it this weekend, post it, and we can discuss any potential problems people have with it on this page. metzerly 21:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no discussion of comparing other forms of entryism in this article, nor is there any original research - I again point you to both the Glotzer biography and the Dog Days letter collection.--Jacrosse 01:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the article referred to on this page should (1) focus primarily on the events taking place in France in the 1930s, (2) give a brief summary of the French Turn elsewhere (perhaps giving the example in the US, Britain, etc.), (3) give a very brief lead-in to the entryism article. Shachtman should play a very small role (if at all) in this particular article. --metzerly 09:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with metzerly. Having poured through 'Dog Days', I just can't find any references to the French Turn in the documents, which is unsurprising since it covers an earlier period. I have ordered the Glotzer book but not got it. Jacrosse has not has time to cite any references from this book and, if his use of the book is a guide, it seems to have an original POV. --Duncan 11:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Version

Okay, I've posted my new article. Feel free to clean it up/tear it apart as you wish. --metzerly 07:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You've done an excellent job here. I'm not sue if you stress the preconditions for entry: is that worthwhile. The discussions on entry show that Trotsky saw is as a way to link up with revolutionaries and left-ward moving centrists in those parties. I'm also surprised by your comments on the IS and the IC. Both sides sides practiced entrism, and entrism sui generis as well. The both the SLL and the pro-SWP US group in Britain in the 1970s, the League for Socialist Action, was entrist for example. --Duncan 09:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you're right on both counts. I was perhaps not clear enough, but by referring to the ICFI I was thinking about the more "Spartacistic" elements within it. Perhaps this could be more clearly defined. --metzerly 18:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. Spartacist, of course, was only briefly in the IC. The mainstream on both slides conducted entry into the 1980s: Labour Herald (and as I have alread mentioned the League for Socialist Action (UK)). Other than Oehler, it would be interesting to see who else has opposed the Turn --Duncan 18:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's a link to an article from the International Bolshevik Tendency on the French Turn: [1] It names some others opposed to the turn. While the IBT isn't in the position to denounce entryism on principle, the article does show some ambivalence toward the benefits of the turn. I'm not sure if we can find similar material from other ultra-left Trotskyist groups. --metzerly 23:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I've added a reference to Hugo Oehler, who is the root of this view, in the anglo-saxon countries at least. The Weisbord group had a similar approach, but they are [at best] Trotskyists without Trotsky. --Duncan 08:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neoconservatism and French Turn

Jacrosse, you have been asked numerous times to cite specific texts/passages about the influence of the French Turn on Shachtman. There is no direct link between the historical French Turn and neoconservatism, and therefore it is POV to include it in this article. Your actions are bordering on vandalism. --metzerly 03:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have repeatedly pointed to two sources - the Glotzer biography of Trotsky and the Dog Days volume.--Jacrosse 14:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Where are your pages and quotes? You have been asked to produce specific material for weeks, but you have been unresponsive. DuncanBCS couldn't find anything in Dog Days. Can you provide page numbers? --metzerly 17:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Once again, you have asserted (without references) that there is a direct connection between the French Turn and neoconservatism, which is false. You are inserting your own analysis into an article, violating NPOV. If you do not stop your unilateral revisions, I will seek mediation. --metzerly 22:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
As per my previous warning, I am seeking mediation because of the last section of this article added by Jacrosse. --metzerly 00:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I feel sorry for the people who are asked to mediate this. It's arcane, and the mertaisl to which Jacrosse refers are not easily found. However, I have to point out that the "Dog Days" book is a documentary collection of materials from the 1931-1933 period, which was prior to the French Turn in 1934. There is not only no material in that book to support his arguement, there seem to be not documents in there that refer to the French Turn in any way. Further more, the idea that the French Turn proposed that social demcratic (i.e. pro-capitalist) labour parties could take the place of leninst (i.e. anti-capitalist) parties is orginal. The French Turn was tactic in which Trotsky's followers joined revolutionary socialist current in other parties in order to prevent those parties becoming social democratic. In the US, for example, the French Turn was taken only after the social democrats had left the Socialist Party. There was never the suggestion that these social democratic parties could act take the place of anti-capitalist parties: I can't think of any socialists, in any camp, who have taken this view. Beyond this, the idea that, even if social democratic parties could become anti-capitalist than neo-conserative parties could also undertake this evolution is also original. No-one has argued this. The roots of this confusion are deeper. A small number of neo-conseratives are former trotskyists, or were active in organisations that had previously emerged from Trotskyism. Some of their oponents aim to discredit them by connecting them to Trotskyism. However, they are not trotskyists, do not claim to be influenced by it, are are not influenced by it. --Duncan 15:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, theoretically, they were trying to "convert" the social democratic parties to their own point of view, but this did not change the fact that the parties themselves, regardless of their offficial ideology, could still serve Leninist ends. Indeed, this is precisely what happened in the case of the Shachtman takeover of the SP. Shachtman himself never renounced Trotskyism, and though his followers came to call themselves Social Democrats, they remained Leninists in practice to the hilt.--Jacrosse 15:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Your views are quite original. The French Turn was not a tactic to win over social democratic parties per se, but a way to unify with revolutionary currents in workers parties generally, including centrist currents, like the ILP, and revolutionary parties like the Workers Party. The form of words about 'serving Leninist ends' is quite misleading, and the idea that a Shachtman take over of the SP would have served Leninism is quite original since he was not a Leninist at that time. However, The French Turn is a Trotskyist tactic. Shachtman did not call himself a trotskyist at that time and, certainly, he moved it further from revolutionary marxism. All this is better discussed elsewhere, but the idea that the Social Democrats USA were Leninists also seems original. Surely SDUSA were pro-capitalist social democrats while Lenin was a anti-capitalist revolutionary socialist. --Duncan 23:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I have read through Glotzer's biography of Trotsky and find nothing in it to support Jacrosse's additions: as was also the case with the other source, 'Dog Days'. His additions seem to be original research. I propose they are removed unless sonome can provide solid references. --Duncan 21:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I have taken the suggestion of the mediator, on the mediation page, and deleted the unsupported material. Of course, we should remain open to reintorducing this material should suitable references be found.--Duncan 08:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISL in the SP: French Turn and entrism

I have just noticed the new tag marking the addition on the ISL entry into the SP as dubious, and the connection of the renaming of the SP to sime project of the ISL also seems original. I agree with this label. The ISL could have entered the SP, however this was not a form of the French Turn. The French Turn is a tactic by which Trotskyists unite with revolutionary marxists in other parties under some specific circumstances. The ISL was engaged in entrism, perhaps, but not the French Turn. Indeed, since the ISL was evolving into social democracy, an alternative explaination is that the ISL collapsed into the SP rather than entering with the aim of winning it to revoltutionary politics. The idea that any example of leftist subterfuge can be labled as Leninist or Trotskyist is imprecise and original.--Duncan 23:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What is dubious is the idea that their evolution into social democracy was genuine - they entered and executed a hostile takeover, sounds Leninist to me!--Jacrosse 02:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds that way to you, i.e. POV. Please stop removing the dispute tags, or I will be forced to report you for vandalism. --metzerly 04:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
In other words, on POV isn't valid or appropriate to discuss but another is just because you say so?--Jacrosse 22:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
You've been warned by others on your talk page about removing tags. These tags are not my "POV" -- there is quite obviously a dispute going on. I've reported you for disruption/vandalism. --metzerly 04:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been talking to the mediator and it seems that what you need to do is yourself find a way to rephrase rather than weaseling in the dispute tags and try to come to some agreement that way.--Jacrosse 17:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand how the mediator could suggest that. Typically we would work around a disputed claim by sourcing it [In the opinion of Aaron Ardvaark ants are lovely food, however Bobby Bat says....]. However, I just can't find any source that suggests that ISL dissolution was a variant of the French Turn. Until then, I recomment that either you bring a comment by the mediator to this page or help identify some supportive sources. Seriously, have you read this claim anaywhere? --Duncan 18:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Jacrosse, the "weaseling in" of the dispute tags is a compromise. If I was simply having my way, the material would be removed completely until you come up with some well-cited sources. --metzerly 21:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
For the record, i didn't suggest that.... i suggested in an e-mail we should work towards a comprimise based on facts backed up by sources. I said nothing about dispute tags....and they're perfectly kosher, seeing as how there's a dispute going on. Thesocialistesq 22:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
And Jacrosse, post on the mediation page from now on, SVP.Thesocialistesq 22:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Jacrosse's edit is highly inaccurate. In fact, both sides of the 1970s faction fight were Shachtmanites, the SDPUSAers were right-Schachtmanites and the DSAers were led by left-Shachtmanite Michael Harrington. The reason Jacrosse's analysis falls apart is he overlooks the fact that Shachtman's followers were not monolithic, in fact they splitered into three competing factions, the right-Shachmanites of what became SDUSA, the left (or centre) Shachtmanites of Harrington's faction and the further left Shachtmanites led by Hal Draper who were outside of the Socialist Party and became the Independent Socialists/International Socialists.Homey 01:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That's incorrect actually - yes Harrington was a fellow traveler at least of Shachtman, but nearly all his supporters against the Shachtmanites never were. And Draper and his followers had been out of the picture for almost 25 years by that time.--Jacrosse 21:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
While both of you are looking for references, I suggest you also consider what that has to do with French Turn. I cannot see a connection. Harrington's views could be better discussed on Shachtmanism. I realize that Jacrosse's view assume, a priori, that Shachtmanism cannot have crumbled or fragmented, since it is a Leninist plot. See more on Leninist control of Pentagon. --Duncan 08:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)