Talk:International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist)

.

I put back some information which the person who removed it claimed was slander (even though in written form it would actually be "libel"). I know these claims to be true and the Sparts' reputation is pretty well known on the Left.

SonofRage 04:00, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alex Cockburn, who is famously thin skinned, may not like the comparison of his writing style to that of the Sparts. If so, he should stop being witty and sarcastic and adopt instead the New York Times' put everyone to sleep style. 1-6-05

The sentence(s) about the Sparts engaging in violence with other leftist groups isn't worth including. We are talking about shoving and shouting matches, guys, not some Operation Mop Up. Enough to say that they sometimes seize the microphone and go on too long at other folks' meetings, which indeed is something they have long been known for on the left. I am leaving the sentence(s) but I think the editor should consider dropping them unless somebody remembers some really horrific event. 1-ll-04

I have restored the phrase about Worker's Vanguard's fine obituaries that was removed by someone shortly after I included it. Let me cite as my examples the obits on Bill Epton, Robert F. Williams and Dick Fraser. There have been many others. The phrase giving Workers' Vanguard its due for playing the role of newspaper of record (re obituaries) that no one else on the left is willing to play should not be removed again simply because someone from the BT doesn't like it. But supporters of the Sparts have also been playing games with this article. I put considerable effort last month into making it as fair as possible to the Sparts--and indeed I think it is not in its present form hostile to them. Thus it annoys me that their supporters have injected phrases like "falsely claims" or "mischaracterizes" in respect to their opponents' allegations. Hey, guys, a claim is just a claim, but to say something is a "false" claim is a factoid--and one that the writer fails to offer any proof for. If we are talking about shoving matches 15 years ago, or even five years ago, who can remember which claims were false or not? Supporters of the Sparts claim that their group has "documented" the attacks on it by other groups. But as a matter of principle the Sparts don't file police reports against other groups and don't sue them in a court of capitalist law, so there is no paper trail for these incidents. Nor to my knowledge has Workers' Vanguard ever provided hospital records of treatment received for injuries, photographs of wounds or bruises, photographs of an attack in progress, or sworn statements from victims or eyewitnesses. In the absence of such, it is not accurate to say that the Spartacists have "documented" such attacks and thus I am removing the phrase in which such documentation is implied. -- Feb. 17, 2005

WarofDreams was correct to revert the doc from the polemical phrases that were added. However, the sentence about the Sparts believing that there can be an equal sexual relationship between an adult and prepubescent child is of sufficient importance that it should be retained IF the person who added it can provide a quote from Spart publications that proves the statement is accurate.--July 23, 2005

There is too much in this article which is the retailing of claim and counterclaim - much of which seems to originate from disaffected members of the Sparts (the IBT). If people are interested they can visit websites, buy press etc. The serious discussion of the 'cult' claim is just too ridiculous.--Jack Upland 03:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Youth Group of the ICL

This section of the article seems very POV. It's good to mark it with {{Fact}} but why not just cut it if we get no references? --Duncan 20:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is fact:

About 10 years ago, the Sparts showed up at an ISO event in Chicago and provoked a fight with several ISO members. During the course of the fight, one longtime ISO member, Joe Allen, had his leg broken in two places. The Sparts were do pleased about this they plastered flyers about it all over Roger's Park, a neighborhood on Chicago's far North Side. The above comment was unsigned

"About" ten years ago? An unsigned comment? A "fact"???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Polemic against "Here is fact" slander

Perhaps you should supply evidents before making such baseless allegations. I have worked with the ICL's Canadian section for a year and a half and have never witnessed such things. In fact the ISO has a attacked people in the ICL(FI) in Chicago as well as in Toronto. And if the ICL is "open" about "provoking fights" why would I not have heard of this? To speak from experience, I myself have been attacked by groups that have made similar slanders against the ICL(FI).

Leon Trotsky 14:31, 1 February 2007

CIA funded

I've heard consistent allegations that the Sparts were CIA funded. This was as a result of their idiosyncratic postitions on many left issues eg MIGs for Managua which was widely seen as been designed to undermine the work of the Nicaragua Solidarity Campaign position that the Sandinistas were independent revolutionaries seeking national self-determination. There was also the fact that most of those (at least in Ireland in the 80s) selling the paper seem to have been Americans. Probably prejudice but does anyone have evidence to support or shed other light on this?

--Gramscis cousin 21:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard this story, in more than 20 years. They certainly do have funds, but nothing out of the ordinary, of the type we have seen with the Healy movement. The Spart's lines doesn't really reflect that of the CIA; that's really the role of the labour aristocracy. Nor do they act as disruptors and provocatuers of the left today, in the way they did in the later 70ss and early 80s. The dispute over MIGs is a little more complex: the Sandinistas bought MIGs against the wished of the USSR. Under Soviet pressure, the Cubas impounded those planes to prevent the FSLN deepending the military conflict. In this instance, the NSC was covering up for Stalinism, and undermining the real wishes of the FSLN. Most Americans are not agents of the CIA, so the fact that many Sparts are from the US really doesn't mean anything.--Duncan 10:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting explanation. However the Sparts were known as the SpartaCIAist League by many at the time mentioned. This however was probably black propaganda by local "Tankies". --Gramscis cousin (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you can find a reference to support that. If the CIA really wanted to undermine the Sandinists, they could have funded people who were much harsher critics - people who were more Stalinophobic. But they would not have sent in CIA operatives to staff these groups, any more than they staffed the British Labour party in the 1960s. They fund people who really believe in whatever the say. --Duncan (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's total bullshit, in fact to their credit they took the FSP to task for circulating anti-communist lies about the Sandanistas during that period.

I agree Duncan I'm just observing that this was a view that was current in the place and period mentioned. I never said I believed it myself I just felt it was interesting and was curious as to whether anyone else had heard it. As I said it was probably just "slagging" and has no substance. --Gramscis cousin (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Spartacist's strongest section is in America. Yes, they irritate many of their opponents. Does that make them CIA???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The Spartacist League as Disruptors

In response to the claims that the Spartacist League are disrupters and provocateurs. The groups that I have come across that have made these accusations think any form of political dissent or criticism is disruptive. One such group is the Vancouver-civic Tendency Fire This Time Movement for Social Justice which has gone as far to accuse one of their former cadre of disruptive behavior because he came out about Fire This Time attacking him.

Leon Trotsky 14:45, 1 February 2007

Splits

I've removed the NPOV label from the section on splits, since there's no comment on this page to suggest why that section might be POV. --Duncan 21:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC )

What Proof

Proof do you have that Jim Robertson "purged" people from the ICL(FI) or that he holds undisputed power? What group has put forward these arguments? Leon Trotsky 15:07 24 February 2007 Are you making the point that the SL purched these people, rather than Robertson alone? --Duncan 12:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

references

Why is an article on www.marxist.com(IMT) a reference for the Sparts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.28.193 (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Death Agony

In a book entitled Death Agony of the Fourth International, Workers Power and the Irish Workers Group claim the iSt's strategy was/is based on, and they quote from an iSt document, "destroying" other left wing groups. They claim this involves occupying rooms where other left groups are due to have meetings as well as other methods. Furthermore, they argue that the Spartacists, while developing a correct position that the SWP were centrist, did not recognise that the Fourth International had degenerated before it split, and therefore were more critical of one section than of the other.

This paragraph is quite incoherent, its complaints (room bookings) petty, its analysis (more one section than the other) vague.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, "centrist" being sectarian gibberish referring to people who are tainted with heresy.

Suggest Split

I strongly feel this page should be renamed/re-oriented. I do not know if this has been discussed before but this page is really about the Spartacist League of the United States, with only a few tibits about the other sections of this "International". I think it would be more accurate to split this page into one for the original Spartacist League in the US and one for the ICL(FI), and then create pages for the other spartacist leagues in other countries. I do not wish to do this "unilaterally" however and would like the input of others who have participated on the articles discussion page to respond on the discussion page before I take this step.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There is not much to say about the leagues in other countries. None of them are notable enough to justify separate entries. Rather than produce a series of stubs, we should keep it as one article. --Duncan (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Then I suggest a smaller page dealing with the international Spartacist tendency / ICL, and another one on the Spartacist League proper. As it is this is basically a page about the US org, and not much on the other groups, or the "international" itself.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

What would be a benefit of producing a stub about the ICL? Why not just name this page SL-US and then redirect ICL to a section of this article? I just don't see why we need more articles. --Duncan (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

We do already have articles on the Spartacist League (US), Spartacist League of Britain and Lega trotskista d'Italia. This page deals with the international. I can't see anything in it specifically about the U.S. group, other than in relation to how the international originated but, if there is anything, it should be moved to the specific article. Warofdreams talk 14:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Check the history. Until a few days ago this was just about Spatacist League US. I moved that over to the new page on SL/US and created an entirely new history section just on the "international". I also just wrote the Italian page yesterday.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that, thanks. Your split makes perfect sense to me. Warofdreams talk 17:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)