Talk:List of Trotskyist internationals

AWL

Having spent several years in the organisation, I wonder if the Alliance for Workers' Liberty wouldn't fit better under 'Ex-Trotskyist'. It sees little positive meaning in the 'Trotskyist' label. Unsigned comment

As an AWL member, I think that the group is accurately described as "Trotskyist". But the only way for this list not to descend into chaos is to take groups' self definitions. Hence the Posadists are listed, although I'd say they have nothing signficant in common with Trotsky. As a brief list, this isn't the best place for discussion of the political orientation of groups - the article on the AWL should make our positions clear (and probably needs some work). Warofdreams talk 10:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ITC

Is the International Trotskyist Committee for the Political Regeneration of the Fourth International still active? I thought it never recovered from its 1991 split. --Duncan 09:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

We are adding to this not only Internationals (world parties) but also co-ordinating committees and liason groups without a party-type structure. Do we want to turn this into a list of international trotskyist committees? --Duncan 07:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with using a broad definition here, because even, say, the ICFI didn't have a party-type structure for most of its existance. Do you think we should rename the article, or that this current name is clearer, and the precise scope could be covered in the introduction? Warofdreams talk 20:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think broader scope makes sense, and we should spell it out. Can you imagine trying to work out a dispute on which are 'real' Internationals?!? --Duncan 11:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Utopia (Utopia Socialista)

The seems to have only an Italian organisation supporting it. [1]--Duncan 12:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence with a ...

Others argue that the title "Fourth International" is so discredited that a Fifth International or another new organization.

This sentence needs to be completed, however I am not sure what it is trying to say, or I would fix it. --86.128.252.182 02:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-trotskyist

I think these organisations should be moved off this page, which is a list of Trotskyist internationals, and instead onto the list of left-wing internationals.--Duncan (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Warofdreams talk 02:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'l do that now.

Criteria

I have removed Humanists for Revolutionary Socialism from the list, and think it's worth making a point about criteria. An international is a world party formed of national political organisations. It forms one organisation which can act, so it's more than a co-ordinating discussion body in which national groups meet(for example, LO's Necessary International Initiative was not an international). An international has national sections, so a single world organisation formed of individual members isn't an international either. --Duncan (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...it should never of been on any international list. Now, however, it's affiliated to one called the "International Leninist Trotskyist Fraction" which is listed on their web site.DavidMIA (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason, the non-Internationals (FSP, AWL) should be moved off this page. Agreed? --Duncan (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - unlike a single world organisation of individual members, these groups (and the Necessary International Initiative) are similar to internationals, in that they are international networks of parties, the difference being that they have no formal structure. They are not internationals, as you say, but it is relevant and useful to note them here. It may also discourage people from mistakenly adding them to the main list of internationals on this page. Warofdreams talk 23:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Tendencies"

What does the word "tendencies" mean in the phrase "Certain tendencies which claim to be Trotskyist make no attempt to claim any relationship to the Fourth International in an organisational sense"? This is not common English usage. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Tendency' is a noun in this context but, yes, it's not common use. I've replaced it with organization. --Duncan (talk) 19: 50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I changed the status of the WIRFI on this page to that of an active organisation, see its website here: http://workersinternational.info/ --82.113.121.236 (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]