Talk:Max Shachtman

message: It's a pity that the author of this note only concentrates about the most right-wing heirs of Max Shachtman's ideas. As a matter of fact  part of his followers have followed a totally different political itinerary and several Left groups today have had links in the 60s with Left-wing Schachtmanites, even if they changed of political positions and came back to more orthodox trotskyst ideas
		
1) THE SPARK, a group linked  to Lutte Ouvrière (France) which left in 1964
2)  ISCO (1970) and the Center for Socialist History of Hal Draper 
3) SOCIALIST FOR INDEPENDENT POLITICS (SIP) close to New Politics in  1972. Joanne Landy
4) the REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALIST LEAGUE (1973)  Ron Tubar. In 1976 this group divides itself in 2 
5) the Revolutionary Socialist League, which will give birth to Love and Rage (anarchists)
6) the LEAGUE FOR REVOLUTIONARY PARTY (LRP), Sy Landy and Walter Daum
7) the  INDEPENDENT SOCIALIST ORGANISATION (linked to the British SWP). 
8)  Workers Power (1978)  with Robert Brenner
Some these groups will form  
9) SOLIDARITY (1982) and Against the Current
And to be complete one should note that in Britain and Australia two groups (the Alliance for Workers Liberty) claim the heritage of Max Schachman's third camp ideas while being attached to traditional revolutionary trotskyst politics.
User:DJ Silverfish
---
Spark was founded in 1968 after splitting from the Spartacist Leahue. Other than maybe one member of Spark - kay Ellens - having been in the ISL there is not connection with Shactmanism.
The RSL and LRP, the RMC too for that matter as they divided in three, all disavowed their origins in the IS So not Shachtmanite.
ISO too broke with Shachtmanism. Only Joel Geier in that group has 'Shachtmanite' roots. They no longer have links with the SWP btw.
---
You seem to have lots of facts behind your view - why not expand the article to reflect your knowledge?  Kaisershatner 16:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heirs and epigones 

message: Does it make sense to describe Shachtman as a Trotskyist, when this only described a decade of his long life? He was a Communist in the 20s, a Trotskyist in the 30s and from the 1940s onwards seems not to have described himself as a Trotskyist, but to have clearly used terms like 'trotskyism' to refer to the Fourth International rather than the ISL. (see, for example,  --DuncanBCS 13:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *During the period of the unity offensive against the SWP, when Shachtman was supporting the split project of the Goldman Morrow faction, there is at least one case of the WP calling itself Trotskyist. I can't see this use repeated. --Duncan 12:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trotskyist? 

message: It's rather a shame that we don't have anything on his work in the CP and CLA... --DuncanBCS 09:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the "Beginnings" with biographical material and his role in the early Communist and Trotskyist movements. I'll be glad to add to the other sections, but I'm afraid I can only take so much Shachtman at a time... --metzerly 10:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-38 history? 

message: I can't think of any basis to describe Shachtman a "close confidant" of Trotsky. This represents a tense relationship during the period of the Left Opposition, to 1933 and from 1938, as tensions grew in the SWP. Can anyone indicate any single confidence between the two? --Duncan 12:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the book, Main Currents of Marxism, by Leszek Kolakowski, 2005, , there is no mention of Max with Leon ever. Yet there are several major points cited for Trotsky that might bring light to some of this, hint is on pages 950-951. This same book cites the first through the third international but being written in 2005 still does not list the fourth being brought up here and in the logo.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.45.99 (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No grounds to say "close" to Trotsky

message: I've cleaned up the last part of the article and reorganized it into two sections that are more distinct ("Shachtman in the Socialist Party" and "Shachtman's influence on neoconservatism"). I also added some information. --metzerly 01:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've gone a little bit further and combined the sections "Forms the Independent Socialist League " and "'Third Camp' view". Now the article is clearly broken down into early, middle and late Shachtman (with a brief discription of his influence on neoconservatism). Jacrosse, I'd ask that you please not change the wording to say "close collaborator of Leon Trotsky" unless you can cite/quote specific lines out of specific texts. --metzerly 02:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jacrosse, please discuss your edits on this page. You are removing large chunks of information, and many of your other edits have an explicit POV. Some of your edits (as well as your unwillingness to compromise) are crossing over into vandalism. --metzerly 03:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The material I deleted was either superfluous or opinionated analysis, the latter of which again would perhaps be appropriate for the article on the SDUSA, and your assertions about the SDF are simply false.--Jacrosse 21:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the material on the SDF is accurate. The SP-USA's archivist has stated this fact. To attempt to compromise, I have reduced the SDF references in the text. I also included the "widely regarded" in my current revisions. I don't know why you feel it isn't necessary to include the Vietnam War reference, and your last sentence is obviously POV. If you do not stop your unitlateral revisions without discussing them with the other editors and I, I will be forced to seek mediation. --metzerly 22:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The SPUSA is not reliable by and large.  The SDF was against the ISL coming in, they were after all the original anti-Leninist section of the party, what happened was that the tiny Democratic Socialist Federation which carried on after the merger was let back in by the Shachtmanites in 1972 to do their bidding.  I'm not sure what Vietnam reference your referring to.--Jacrosse 23:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article clean-up 

message: The following links should demonstrate how widely held a view it is that the Shachtmanites never changed their fundamentally Leninist character:
   
Jacrosse 15:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this. Links will be useful. Ideally, if we can relate each of your disputed comments to a souce, then we may be able to aid the mediation process growing onto more of the pages where you are introducing this idea. The final one seems to be broken, or perhaps iot's just offline at the moment. Of the other three, two don't mention Leninism; the other mentions Leninism, but not speciaifically in relation to Shachtman. Perhaps I am missing something? I would appreciate if you could cite which sections support your view. Furthermore, it poses the question of whether much statements might need to be balanced. For example, on other entries, comments like this marked be marked as controversies to show that they are principally disputed. By the way, Glotzer's book arrived today. Are there any pages I should focus on? --Duncan 15:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read Glotzer's book, and nothing supports the Leninist take over idea. The same is true of the article you just linked. I am reverting to the previous version. I strongly counsel you to not delete tags with agreement, but instead to source evidence for your point of view and to win consensus on the Talk page. Repeatedly deleting Metzerly's tag without agreement is vandalism. 
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.   Duncan 17:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have re-read the aricle by Justin Raimondo. This is the linked article to the claim about the Leninist take-over. It does not does not support claim. It suggests that a number of former Shachtmanites moved to the right, in the process breaking with Marxism and fragmenting further. Raimondo's article does not support the claim removed from the article. Even if he did, one claim would not justify inclusion automatically. Furthermore, Raimondo seems to be a highly partisan source, one who sees to shock and whose work is not carefully referenced. Indeed, many Wikipedians would argue that a blog is never a reputable source. However, this no references support the Leninist takeover claim, we must await further citations before developing this section. --Duncan 19:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Any reading of the following web page  should be satisfactory to your standard.  Even so however, remember that these are Leninists and that therefore duplicity is their stock in trade.--Jacrosse 16:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Dimadick, these are useful suggestions. There are some difficulties in this dispute which are special: Jacrosse doesn't acrtually have an interest in Shachtman himself, but in proving that the US neo-conservatives are so agressive because their are alien to the body politic of that country and, in fact, are duplicitous Leninists. So are the US Social Democrats. And, did you ever notice all those red shirts in Sevn Brides for Seven Brothers? However, we are unable to find any evidence for Jacrosse's claims. For example, his reference to the index page of socialdemocrats.org does not point us towards any evidence. One may as well cite the Library of Congress, in that no specific claim is given to support his claims. In my opinion, the idea that Shachtman was father of neo-conservatism is odd, yet we leave it in this article. At the moment, energies on this article are getting diverted by Jacrosse's continued reversion to his version of this article. In the absence of any references that support his claim, all we can do is delete the references. However, remember that Jacrosse's defence is ad hominem: because the Shacthmanites are Leninists, are because Leninists are secretive and duplicitous, no public statements could be made to prove or disprove his claims. I would welcome suggestions on how to proceed. In the mean-time, I will delete Jacrosse's unsupported additions. I will also try to work in some of the material you refer to --Duncan 19:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links in support of my position 

message: Does anyone have a citation for the line "In the 1970s Paul Wolfowitz was a speaker at SDUSA conferences"? I don't doubt it myself, but considering the controversy around Wolfowitz's political history, it would be good to have a reference. --metzerly 22:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, even if true how does this suggest that Shactmanism influences neoconservatism, rather than something else? --Duncan 10:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone just left this unsigned comment: "(Paul Wolfowitz never addressed any meeting of SDUSA. I was a close friend of Max Shactman and a member of the WP through all its permutations. I never heard the name of Wolfowitz. I suspect this co)" Since we still don't have a citation after 20 months, I will remove this claim. --Duncan (talk) 11:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolfowitz 

message: For the record, Sidney Hook was a Lovestoneite, not a Shachtmanite. There are similarities between the trajectory of the Lovestoneites and the Shachtmanites towards anti-Communism and their influence on the anti-Communist movement in the United States but they are different movements that had little to do with each other. Homey 17:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then that deserves to be cut, or perhaps moved to Social democratic plots to take over social democracy. --Duncan 10:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sidney Hook

message: I'm sorry to resort to something so drastic, but it seems too much information was added, not that none of the new information shouldn't be included, and furthermore makes an unnecessary and misleading distinction between the "Trotskyist" and "post-Trotskyist" Shachtman.  It also seems increasingly that in this and all the related disputes the main issue is individuals who want to preserve their sectarian point of view by insisting that such and such was not Trotskyist at this or another time and to largely brush aside the whole question of neoconservatism.  Also, while there may be some ambiguity about Sidney Hook's relationship to Shachtman, he absolutely never was a Lovestonite.--Jacrosse 21:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment about the length of this article on a recent edit seems odd. Your reversion not only cuts out text change changes the article so that, rather than Shacthman's influnce flowing in several directions it leads only to neo-conservatism. As such, your version is not editing, but pushing your unsupported POV. I suggest you take some time out to find some references. Your recent addition to Neoconservatism was amazing. You have clearly got some great references to share with us because, on the basis of my limited research, every claim you made seems to be untrue. Share your sources with us! Bring us out of the darkness! --Duncan 16:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I reverted 

message: The article as it stands strikes me as odd and overly reliant on a small number of sources most of which are very factional for example Wohlforth and Robertson. Neither of whom were about at the times concerned. The material on the WP/ISl is downright peculiar and some of it very inaccurate. Jock Haston
:Hi Jock. We are doing our best to add in more sources. Just compare the article to how it was a year ago. If you have other balancing sources, we would love to have them. --Duncan 10:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jock 

message: I created Shachtman's article a while back. It's amazing how sophisticated the article has become. Wikipedia works! However, I think this latest versions of the entry would be most useful to an enthusiast of Marxist sectologies. I think my earlier versions gave a more straightforward (and simpler) outline of Shachtman's significance.
:This entry is really the dialecic at work. One editor tried to introduce an unusual and unsupported POV here; in turn that made us flesh out the entry much more systematically. --Duncan 09:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WOW 

message: "page not found" --Alex1011 (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  footnote 25 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Max Shachtman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.trotskyana.net/Trotsky_Collection/Trotskyists/Bio-Bibliographies/bio-bibl_shachtman.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928011405/http://www.workersliberty.org/node/4503 to http://www.workersliberty.org/node/4503
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Max Shachtman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120910181846/http://digital.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/t/text/text-idx?idno=31735051655409%3Bview%3Dtoc%3Bc%3Damlefttxt to http://digital.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/t/text/text-idx?idno=31735051655409%3Bview%3Dtoc%3Bc%3Damlefttxt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050429230035/http://dlib.nyu.edu:8083/tamwagead/servlet/SaxonServlet?source=shachtman.xml&style=saxon01t2002.xsl to http://dlib.nyu.edu:8083/tamwagead/servlet/SaxonServlet?source=shachtman.xml&style=saxon01t2002.xsl
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Max Shachtman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050308235747/http://www.chicagodsa.org/audarch2.html to http://www.chicagodsa.org/audarch2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As of the time of this comment, the link for the "Before Braverman: Harry Frankel and the American workers' movement" article (currently note 18) leads to the site's search page: http://findarticles.com/?noadc=1. Checking Monthly Review's own site, they link to that 1999 article via DOI: https://doi.org/10.14452/MR-050-08-1999-01_5, which redirects to https://monthlyreviewarchives.org/index.php/mr/article/view/MR-050-08-1999-01_5 where one can buy the PDF for $3 (USD). Archive.org appears to have 4 out of 5 pages of the article, but I couldn't find the Sedova reference, which makes me think it's on the missing third page, especially since I was able to find the quote in question at an I found an alternate link: https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Before+Braverman%3a+Harry+Frankel+and+the+American+workers%27+movement.-a053972890
Possible options I see:
# Leave the citation as-is, relying on the access date and pull quote
# Change the URL to link to the MR article itself, either directly or via doi.org
# Use the Free Library URL
# Supplement the reference with Natalia Sedova's Resignation from the Fourth International, cited in her own Wikipedia article
# some combination of the above
The first is the default if no change is made, but I think it's the least helpful option. I'm currently leaning towards #2, given that it points to the article's actual origin, but I'm also weighing whether having the full text is more important.  
I'm undecided about #4 since, while it shows a break from the orthodox Trotskyist position, it doesn't specifically indicate support for Shachtman's particular type of heterodoxy (as opposed to, say, Tony Cliff's analysis of state capitalism).
--Dhraakellian (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for Sedova's support of Shachtman's positions 

message: Support the November proposal to merge Yetta Barsh Shachtman (3rd wife) to here; no independent notability; it's a better alternative to deletion. Klbrain (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal