Talk:Trotskyism: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia
| minthreadsleft = 4
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}
}}
==Contentious area==
Given what the article itself establishes—that Trotsky’s heirs and epigones are notoriously argumentative—it is surely impossible to define this ‘ism’ in a way which appears to everyone as an NPOV. One suggestion, though: for some people involved or associated with that movement, it is less a specific theory of [[Leon Trotsky]]’s and more a tradition of political opposition to [[Stalinism]] that they identify with. Focusing on the tradition, not the theory, might make more sense. [[User:Adhib|Adhib]] 08:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The section below seems to be clearly taking a political stance:
The International Socialist Organization supported Ralph Nader, an anti-socialist candidate in both the 2000 and 2004 elections. Britain’s SWP supported George Galloway, an establishment Labor politician, in his campaign under the Respect Coalition, which included Islamist groups. Like Nader’s campaign was meant to influence the Democrats, the Respect Coalition means to push the discredited Labor Party to the left rather than replace it with a party truly representing the working class. Both Nader and Galloway accept money from right-wing groups to help their campaign, Nader from Republicans and Galloway from Arab nationalist governments.
Calling Orwell a socialist writer is probably a stretch, too
Each group went through evolutions. Communist support to the British LP goes back to 1919, the Trotskyists called for a vote for Labour in the 1930s and onward, off and on, etc. You contribution here is not historical but really pollemical.
–David Walters
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism On Line
== Reorganizing this article ==
== Reorganizing this article ==
 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don’t take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Trotskyism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Trotskyism at the Reference desk. |
 |
|
Reorganizing this article
I wonder if this article needs a substantial reorganization. I get the impression that at each phase, someone has written another few sentences and then someone of the opposite viewpoint has edited them. So we have a positive presentation of Trotskyism and critiques of Trotskyism meshed together, and every line reads differently.
My proposal is that we reorganize the article more systematically, with a new section entitled “Critiques of Trotskyism” or something like that. Then the pejoratives and so forth could be organized under that header, and it might be easier to read. —Kod65red 23:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Till then, I’ve fixed the final sentence that referred to “communist states”.–Che y Marijuana 01:13, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Neutrality dispute
Could the person who has slapped a neutrality dispute label on this article have the decency to explain this action?
As it stands the article is messy and shows all too clearly the signs of many hands. Some of whom lack any real degree of knowledge about the topic. But there is very little in the article that goes beyond the simple reporting of what Trotskyism is. Albeit it does that none too well but thats another matter.
The only real stuff that crosses the line re NPOV concerns Stalin and that will be gone very soon.
Jock Haston
While I can’t take credit for the correct…
Read More: Talk:Trotskyism: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia