Talk:Revolutionary socialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-12-20. The result of the discussion was keep.

This page needs some serious work done. Muigwithania 02:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of Trotsky in this article?

Hi Soman, Sorry to be in a big rush, but just quickly, I cannot understand your objections 1. Becuase if we mention Lenin, then since Trotsky worked with Lenin, for instance on Iskra, he played a leading role in the 1905 revolution, and of course in 1917. It is difficult to see where the objection about the second international comes in. 2. Secondly, today Trostkyism distnguishes itself from Communism, and is often termed revolutionary socialism, at least in Europe. I hope this clarifies things. Andysoh 19:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You might noticed that I originally argued for the deletion of the article, since the definition of the term doesn't really contain more than "socialism that is revolutionary". 'Revolutionary socialism' is not a separate ideological tendency, rather it is a concept that compasses the communist and large sectors of the anarchist movements. The passage about liebknecht, luxemburg and lenin relates to their role in the 2nd international and the debate within the socialist movement at the time of World War I. Not sure if Trotsky fits in that category. Secondly, I object to the notion that Trotskyism and revolutionary socialism would be synonymous. All communist tendencies for part of the revolutionary socialist tradition, and any judgement to try to associate the concept to a particular one would be POV. It might be true, that Trotskyists more often used names like Revolutionary Socialist Party. However, name usage shouldn't be emphazised to hard in this case. --Soman 20:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with those who said "keep".

I agree with you that we must not try to argue that Trotskyism, or any other one trend of socialist thought is the only revolutionary socialist point of view - as you rightly point out, that would be to argue a point of view, and you are quite right to be concerned about that. We must be inclusive.

I hope this helps. Andysoh 13:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)