Talk:Revolutionary Communist League (France)

message: John has added the comments below to the main page. I feel they need to be reworked here. My comment to John was the "account of the LCR congress seems to fit badly. Firstly, Wikipedia is not a news journal, so really punctual stuff like this doesn't fit.  I can see that you've tried to balance your accounts, but it's clearly more partial to the views of some currents than other. Furthermore, it's not really the case that the LCR is simply a Ligue of currents. It's a league of communists, and clearly has a live separate from its tendencies. can I suggest you rework your additions? I have moved them to the LCR talk page with this note." --DuncanBCS 00:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 tendency line-up 

message: I have cut this form of words, which was also in the cut above. The section I have removed is:
As its name "Ligue" suggests, the LCR includes members with rather different positions on a number of key theoretical and practical issues. As a general rule, the tradition in the LCR is to work to find a compromise between different positions rather than to debate and then take a single binding position.
*- The name 'Ligue' itself does not suggest different positions: some leagues do not have different positions. The general taxonomy does something like this: Group [propagandist]; League [able to agitate]; Party [contentds for leadership. 
*- Just because a final position is consensual, that does not mean it is not "a single binding position"
*- I'd like to see several references, from different decades, before we speak of a consensual tradition in the LCR. It's an organisation in which differences are clearly and openly debated; it's not clear if agreements in situations when there are not large majorities are 'lowest common denominators' or if they are compromises [which involve trade-offs].--Duncan 12:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there. [1] In itself, there's nothing consensual about the idea of tendencies getting proportions on the CC; many organisations would give the majority control either by giving them a PC majority or by enjoining members of smaller tendencies to further the line of the conference. There's not a contraciction between the majority having majority control and the minority getting a minority. [2] In the liternature of decision-making, there's sharp difference between lowest common denomimators (which are not compromises, since no-one trade offs) and compromises (in which someone trades off). For example: I love peanuts and like chocolates; you love chocolate and like peanuts... LCD would be a 50:50 split, a compromise would give me more peanuts and you more chocolates. The LCR method, it seems to be, aims to identify that position around which the largest majority of members agree on; not just the lowest common denominator, but a position in which active consent is mobilised. I think the terms for that are pluralist and hegemonic. --Duncan 00:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "As it's name suggests" 

message: What is the connection, if any between the LO and the LCR?  Is their overlap?  Do they ever work together?  If not, why not?  Is it personal or are there real differences between them.--Amcalabrese 21:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no organizational connection between them. Membership of one organization excludes membership of the other. However, they have similar politics and will work together alongside others in progressive struggles. In the past the two have at times run joint candidates (for example in the last regional and European elections), and at times run separately (for example in the 2002 and 2007 presidential elections). The primary difference is over the centrality of workplace stuggles: in the opinion of LO, the LCR is deeply mistaken by focussing on political and social struggles rather than workplace issues; in the opinion of the LCR, LO's policy is similar to the error that Lenin called economism, and reflects a sectarian refusal to support working class struggles outside the workplace. --Duncan 07:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LO and LCR 

message: It's incorrect to say that Besancenot is the "leader" of the LCR. He's "simply" its main spokesman at present. I've edited accordingly. Aridd 21:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Besancenot is not the "leader" 

message: :Image:Francelcrlogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 18:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Francelcrlogo.png