Talk:International Socialist Organization/Archive 1

message: Tony Cliff did not originate the theory of state capitalism.  Max Shachtman and James Burnham did, and Trotsky wrote a book specifically attacking this theory called "In Defense of Marxism."  Readers of Wikipedia deserve to know the true theoritical origins of the ISO, so they can judge for themselves whether this group is Trotskyist.  Please do not attempt to hide the origins of the ISO by deleting this information from the article!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.21.154.24 (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2006.
:This isn't accurate.  The theory developed by Shachtman and Burnham was "Bureaucratic Collectivism," which equated the Soviet and Nazi economic forms.  Although the ISO comes out of the left wing of the Shachtmanite tradition, the theories of bureaucratic collectivism and state capitalism are not the same, and Tony Cliff criticizes the former in State Capitalism in Russia.  Opponents of the ISO sometimes try to conflate the theories, but they are neither the same, nor compatible.  Cadriel 15:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  State capitalism 

message: Someone anonymous made an odd little change to this talk page, removing a mention of John Metz; I've rv'ed it. Rafaelgr 21:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd change 

message: I find the recent change adding "vanguard cadres" to be unclear or misleading. First, because "vanguard cadres" is not a phrase I've ever heard before; I know what the two words mean and I understand what the author is going for, but I think it's a strange formulation. Second, because the concept of the united front already encompasses this. I am going to try instead adding a half-sentence to specify what the United Front is. Catsv 17:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I took a stab at it, not sure it's the best explanation of united front... someone else can try! Catsv 17:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Front 

message: Made a members and meetings section, sorry, should have marked edit as major.  Not sure if there is a template for this kind of addtion.  Drunken Pirate 00:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  added meeting and member sections 

message: I don't want to get in an edit war, especially with someone whose motives I'm probably sympathetic to, so I'm not restoring the previous criticism section.  However, I strongly disagree with the removal of this sentence by 69.86.137.220 on 19:22, 2 February 2006: Some critics have charged that the ISO "latches on" to more popular causes, such as the anti-war or Green movements, as a way to recruit members, who are then indoctrinated to a specific and uniform party line in a "cult-like" manner.  While the accusations are fairly silly, they're quite common among some sections of the left, as evidence by how many times something like this has been added to this article, usually at greater length and without any attempt at NPOV.  Their existence should be recorded.  Without this (still fairly minimal) explanation, the point that the ISO has been criticized "sometimes for its aggressive efforts to build its own organization within broader coalitions" is pretty much impossible to interpret. Kalkin 00:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism section 

message: I reverted to the "Trotskyist" designation again because it is indisputable that the ISO is the "largest and most active" TROTSKYIST organization in the United States, but it is NOT indisputable that the ISO is the "largest and most active" REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALIST organization in the United States. 71.255.214.234 22:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverting to trotskyist again 

message: The existence of criticisms in notable forums, not the validity of those criticisms, is the criterion for including them.  See WP:NPOV:
:Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of debates. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.
:We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.
:Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band", we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It's important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe ..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and subjectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name.
Kalkin 23:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism 

message: Kalkin, I have erased your "criticisms" because they lack evidence. Can you prove that the racial composition of the ISO is "whiter" than the general population? What informs your assertion that ISO leadership structures are "rigid" when ALL positions of leadership in the organization are 1>Elected and 2.Instantly recallable.
We can have a revert fight about this, but I will win because I can PROVE that the structures of the ISO's leadership are eminently democratic. Now, you may argue that the culture of the ISO is undemocratic or authoritarian, and perhaps try to back that up. Otherwise you are just vandalizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.154.137 (talk • contribs) 
:I didn't add that criticism or make the comment on the talk page above that you're apparently responding to.  I sign my contributions.  I've marked the comment above as unsigned by an anon IP, as well as yours.  Use four tildes in a row to sign with time and date.
:I've just expanded the criticism section a great deal, sourcing each attack and adding sourced responses.  However the charge that the ISO is white is one that I removed, because it's clearly false and more importantly, it's not made in the available criticisms online.
:I don't want to engage in a revert war, and in fact I don't believe the ISO is undemocratic.  I do believe that the criticism should be included, because it's made all the time and can be sourced, along with a response (as it so happens, the very response you make, although I hadn't read your comment when I inserted it). 
:I've moved the critical External links to Notes because I used them to source criticisms. Kalkin 22:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletes 

message: I'm not sure why this is a seperate section.  It's very short and seems like it ought to go under Activities.  Anyone have a reason otherwise? Kalkin 22:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No dispute.  I'll do it. Kalkin 01:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  todd chretien 

message: Ryan:
The idea that one disputed incident of redbaiting at SFSU should be in a Wikipedia article about the ISO is ridiculous. 
Dave: I guess this is true, it is a highly specific incident. How would one go about adding something about the hundreds of documented first hand accounts of this type of behavior on the part of the ISO? I'm new here, so I can definitely accept the removal of everything if criticisms are not part of this encyclopedia format. But is it possible to leave some criticism?
Oh, so you know, I am the guy who wrote "ISOnuts", a link you deleted. I didn't post it here though, I think the html trail would show that? Nor did I tell anyone to. I found it was on wiki on a websearch.
Ryan:
Same goes for the "criticisms" of every Democratic Party supporter (John Lacny) who once was a member. The updated "criticism" section was the work of someone with a serious ax to grind, so it was edited.
Dave: You say "every democratic party supporter" and then give one example.Also, does being a supporter of Democrats invalidate his analysis? That seems like a logical fallacy to me. 
I'm not a democrat. I've never been a member of ISO. I added those links as I thought they represented many primary source accounts of dealing with the ISO, and that maybe they balanced the other links, which include some positive views. Again, if this is not appropriate for this format I can totally accept the edit. I just find your justifications to be confusing, Wikipedia rules aside, which is why I'm responding to what you wrote, not calling for the sections to be put back in. 
Ryan:
I will happy to have a revert fight with Kalkin or anyone else about this (I'm on the computer all the time) about this, it's absurd to turn a Wikipedia article into a come-one-come-all opportunity to slander the ISO. It's not happening.
Dave: I don't see a need to fight. Kalkin is a member of the ISO so maybe you are misinterpreting here. He told me at his discussion page. Since that is publicly viewable I guess he's not trying to keep that a secret. I suppose he could be lying, but it didn't seem like it. It wasn't Kalkin's doing just so you know, although he did reformat some of what were mostly my adds. 
Criticism section cancelled
Ryan:
Alright, I've had it. Someone who really hates the ISO has thrown up a whole mish-mash of unfounded attacks on the group with more unsubstantiantiated charges of "authoritarianism" 
Dave: Are first hand accounts considered unsubstantiated? Also, is someone's opinion of the ISO the proper indicator of whether the links were relevant? I added them because I thought the content added some balance, and a view at a broader interpretation, mostly from the political Left. I guess I had a different view as a historian of what sources may be useful to a reader. Also many of the articles you deleted contained direct quotes from ISO member's own writing. Certainly their existence on the websites with their handles and so on substantiates these things were said. But I don't want to be a jerk. Probably what I should be doing is asking if there is any place on wikipedia for such information. For example, maybe an article on anti-authoritarianism? I don't know. It probably exists already and I have not yet searched. I was hoping you might have some advice on where criticisms could go, if at all. I understand this is not a debate site, but it seems that criticism can count as a subject of  its own.
Ryan:
and lots of links to infoshop.org (a website controlled entirely by ONE ANARCHIST) and Democratic Party supporter John Lacny's article 'The Joy of Sects'.
Dave: I have seen stuff censored on infoshop, including a pro-ISO response to my article that I would have liked to have seen! But I don't think the fact that a site has one owner/moderator whatever the proper term is, should disqualify it as a source if the material cited represents somethin relevant. I'm not sure why you put Anarchist in caps. Does it carry a negative connotation, or are you just capping it because most anarchists are heavily anti-ISO? 
Perhaps the ISO article is not a two sided article. But could it be? I'm honestly asking because I don't know. You seem to indicate below you would accept a rewritten criticism section.
Ryan:
I'm getting rid of the whole section. Come up with a fair one. This is a wikipedia article about the ISO, not about what two or three people on the internet think about the ISO. I will keep erasing this nonsense.
Dave: I hope this doesn't come off as rude, but I respectfully disagree with your assessment that the links represented the views of two or three people on the internet. The infoshop links contained complaints that poured in from activists accross the country (same for the indymedia and indybay links), and the SAW site links, which ended up at infoshop contain the political views of ISO members and non-ISO members who had been labelled McCarthyites. It seems very relevant to understanding but maybe there could be a page on the criticism of the ISO? Arguments and counterarguments? I don't know. I may be misinterpreting this site by thinking it exists to inform broadly, when in fact it is more of a referrence. I may be wording that wrong. It may sound dumb, I've used encyclopedias, but never tried to write for one.  Also the Stephen Shalom link was a really interesting piece on the ISO view of the Iraqi resistance, as was one of the other articles. I guess I thought they were scholarly and relevant, but again I probably missed the point of what I thought was a two sided article. 
After I saw the deletions,what I did was go to check the article on the American Nazi Party, and there was no criticism section so I assume this is the norm for articles on organizations. If it is consistent I'm fine with it. 
Thanks for reading this,
Motopu 03:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISO article edits 

message: I had reformatted a number of criticisms that have been repeatedly added by giving them sources, and adding responses.  I think this is better than leaving them off.  A summary of the common criticisms of the ISO and defenders' usual responses is something worth making easily available on Wikipedia.  The only link to infoshop I believe was to Lacny's article hosted there.  The San Francisco State section is probably not notable and was given disproportionate space; I didn't remove it but I probably should have.  But the rest should stay.  If in some way it's not fair say why; the criticisms are sourced, people make them, whether they themselves are fair is not the point.  Many of the criticisms are available only online but that's to be expected for anything about a relatively small group like the ISO.  Stan Goff for example is not just some guy online, even if he's not exactly a leader of the movement.
People who seem to be ortho-Trots have repeatedly removed "revolutionary" from "revolutionary socialist organization."  Thus I added self-described to make it indisputable.  That's not fair either though, sounds snotty.  We could go back to Trotskyist, but that's understating the facts - the ISO is also larger than any Maoist groups, etc.  I don't really have a solution.
People keep attributing the criticisms to me.  This is a mistake.  Please note I did not add the criticisms and do not agree with them. Kalkin 05:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism section 

message: I added some balance to the criticisms section, answering some of Dave Carr and John Lacny's criticims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.26.92 (talk • contribs) 2 March 2006
:While I think that your additions are fine, I think that the critisms section is getting out of control. The whole call and responce set up makes it read like an essay on the merits of the ISO rather the an encycopia article.--JK the unwise 09:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added some balance 

message: I'm going to refer you fellas to some links where I just got through defending myself against an ISO member who is also calling me a redbaiting McCarthyite. I actually don't have all the time in the world, so I hope you won't mind this short cut. Please keep in mind that throwing these terms is a way that authoritarian groups stifle debate. It might be wise to reflect on how similar this charge is these days in the Left to the charge of someone being a communist during the Red Scare. Also, this claiming victimhood charge, I mean did the ISO censor us or not? Yes they did. Did they dominate SAW meetings or not? Yes they did. Did they limit debate and ensure that only ISO projects were carried out by SAW or not? Yes they did. You can tell me I'm dreaming, and blame me, but I think most people can see how Orwellian this is. 
Here are the links, I encourage everyone to read them:
:http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/02/1803611_comment.php#1805838
:http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/02/1803611_comment.php#1805869
Lastly, I can definitely see the merit in some of the criticisms of certain things being innapropriate for this format. My main objection is the uncritical explanations I've seen here. All manner of charges have been thrown against me, and against Kalkin (and by him against me if I'm reading the entries correctly), that are extremely flimsy, and counterproductive for any kind of academic pursuit. Since you feel you can freely label me a McCarthyite, let me just say I really think your "Dream Theater" shirt is lame.
Motopu 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheap accusations don't add up to arguments 

message: He doesn't sign his name on discussion pages, but I think this is Ryan Delaney right? I followed the "talk" link next to his number on one of his posts. 
This guy is on the anti-vandalism watch and he goes in and puts cheap shots like "critics like internet critic Dave Carr (co-writer of this section) " in the criticism section. Because I write criticisms, and some of them are on the internet, he can pigeon hole me and negate everything else I do? 
I'm looking over his recent edits of this page and it is all personalized attacks on me, labeling me a red baiter. Is this "no POV"? But I notice someone took out the portion of the criticism that covered the ISO's over-use of the term. Looks like that really hit a nerve eh? And please tell me, what part of the criticism section did I "co-write" now that this part has been axed? Talk about sloppy writing.
What are the criteria for being a wikipedia badge holder because Ryan's writing has been sub par across the board. He has links to philosophy topics on his page, but doesn't seem to be able to tell a string of logical fallacies from an argument. 
Lastly, I hope that some day, Ryan drops his ideological baggage (yes you will be embarrassed by your constant crying of red baiting some day, call me in five years) and takes the time to read a bit about the actual history of the Left. Here are some suggested texts for a beginner:
:An Introduction to Marxist Economic Theory. Ernest Mandel
:Capital, Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, and The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx
:One Hundred Years of Socialism: The West European Left in the Twentieth Century by Geoff Eley 
:Facing Reality by C.L.R. James 
:Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord
:The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism by Freddy Perlman
:The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control by Maurice Brinton
:Obsolete Communism: The Left Wing Alternative by Daniel Cohn Bendit
:Online article "The Soviet Union versus Socialism" by Noam Chomsky (Whom I am guessing Ryan would consider a red baiter if he read this article).
:Anarchism by Daniel Guerin
:Organizational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy [Leninism or Marxism?] by Rosa Luxemburg
Ryan, Best of luck with this small list, and I hope it clears up some of your confusion!
Motopu 11:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  69.86.137.220 

message: Kalikin, I think you're reading too much into the tea leaves here.  Mieville's book was published as part of an arrangement with  Brill and Historical Materialism, where Haymarket does paperback versions of some of their books and tries to sell them to non-academics, and it's the second of these so far (I think).  I would suggest that this was more likely to have come out of connections with the USFI than with the IST.  Rafaelgr 19:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take your word for it - you clearly know more about the issue than me.  However, my understanding from talking to other ISO members (I am one) is that some people in the IST, specifically the SWP, are friendlier to us than others, e.g. Mieville lets us publish his books while Callinicos won't even let us bulk-buy his.  I presume Mieville could stop his publishers from collaborating with us if he wanted to.  And the fact that the split hasn't been universally acrimonious seems worth mentioning in the article. Kalkin 23:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: International connections

message: ISO is simply NOT "the largest revolutionary socialist organization in the US". The claim which has been repeatedly put on the top of the article is biased and should be removed.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.209.91 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: STOP putting false claims

message: I posted this information in the "Events" section about the regional conferences occurring this Fall, hosted by the ISO, and someone is taking the post down without any explanation. This is a legitimate event, it has a website (www.nesocialistconference.org), and has been placed in the appropriate section per Wikipedia guidelines.
If you are vandalizing this site, please stop. Ptcollins 01:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop taking down information about the Northeast Socialist Conference