Talk:Fourth International (post-reunification)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Socialism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

References to ICFI history[edit]

Please explain which revisions are "POV":

1. Please provide proof that the opposition to the ISFI considered Cuba capitalist. In fact, they considered guerralism and nationalist movements aligned to Stalinism as counter to the internationalist cause and a dead-end for opponents to capitalism.

2. Are you claiming that no other countries joined the ICFI after 1964? This is simply not true. I cannot understand why you would take that comment out.

3. Why do you object to a definition of opportunism in the criticism section? To someone seeking to learn about marxist politics, this is necessary to outline what exactly the objections to ISFI politics are.

Do NOT revert to the old version until you have answered these questions. The revisions were not POV but matters of clarification of fact. [The preceding comment was unsigned]

Thanks for the questions:
  • 1. The SLL and OCI rejected the notion that a workers' state had been created in Cuba. There's no dispute about this, and it remains the position of the IC as far as I know. Hansen gather some of them there [1]
Again, you have no proof that they considered Cuba "capitalist", only that they denied it was a workers' state. Please refrain from distortions of the historical record. For information about how Trotskyists define a workers' state, please see Trotsky's In Defense of Marxism.
  • 2. Only the French and English sections of the IC did not take part in the fusion. By 1966 the IC had created new organisaitons, but these were not former sections of the IC or IC. Indeed, they were generally new organisations that had not participated in either public faction: the Hungarian group had been in either section; the Greek group had split from the Fi many years earlier. The Bulletin group in the US was a tiny minority of the SWP. No section that existed before or at the time of the reunification opposed the reunification, other than the SLL and OCI.
Please read what was stated: the ICFI attracted other countries, including minorities in various countries. "Tiny" or not, remember the Bolsheviks were tiny at one point in their history as well. Whether the facts are to your liking or not is besides the point, if it happened do not attempt to delete it.
  • 3. The definition of opportunism should not be here: it is unreferenced and this is not the best place for it. Create a separate page, perhaps ultraleftism as a template. --Duncan 12:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a good place for it. If the main criticism of the organization is that it is opportunist, then this should be clarified for readers. If you have a better definition of opportunism, then correct it. You are clearly opposed to any criticism of the organization, but do not deny readers of wikipedia the opportunity to see what non-supporters say!
(The section indented above were added by an anonymous reader).

1. There are two grounds for this this. [a] In Trotskyism Betrayed, section 17, The SLL lists Cuba as one of those countries in which Stalinism "has allowed a new bourgeois government to establishing temporary stalbilisation". [b] The SLL and OCI argued against the idea that a workers state existed in Cuba. In Marxism, the state defends class relations of production. Tf a workers state had not been created then, by implication, the state continued to defend capitalism.
2. We have to not take facks from one period and bring them forward in time. In 1961-63, only two sections supported the IC. They one a minority in the SWP, the RT. At that time, they won no other current (majority or minority) in the international. The 1966 conference minutes records only these sections: Britain; France; Greece; Hungary; USA. The Greeks and Hungarians were not won from the IC or IS sections. Therefore the only sections the ICFI won from the reunification were the OCI and SLL, plus the RT.
3. I don't agree that this is the right page to add a definition of opportunism. If you want to add a definition with references, then so so. But do recall that opportunism, in Marxism, is more than electoralism. --Duncan 07:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

US SWP[edit]

The SWP, of courses, was banned from membership of the FI from 1940 onwards. Perhaps it's a formality, since they clearly took part in the life of the world movement, but it's worth noting. The US SWP left the FI after the Australian party, not before it: hence the EFS bulleting on that topic. The SWP formally servered its links in 1990. --DuncanBCS 23:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Size of USFI[edit]

I find the pedantry involved in changing 'one of the larger' back to 'largest' rather daft. Not to mention inaccurate.

The fact of the matter is that the disunited sectarians (joke) have next to no sections with more than say 100 members these days if we except the LCR in France. Competing tendencies can claim equal numbers for example the IST can claim the SWP as the equal in size of the LCR plus the SEK in Greece with several hundred members and a growing group of substance in Spain. The Lambs have the OCI in France plus substantial sections in Algeria and Brazil.

Hard numbers for all the groups and tendencies are hard to come by as you may know. But going by numbers quoted me from the last IEC of the USFI then it is a fact that the USFI is smaller than the IST.

Ignoring your insults, it is widely accepted that the USFI is the largest Trotskyist tendency in the world (I don't have any particular brief for them). Only the IST claims to be larger, and this relies on accepting their own membership figures, which are widely regarded as vastly inflated. The CWI concede that they are not as large, the ICL has almost no-one beyond Lutte Ouvriere, while Lambert's individual groups are far smaller than the LCR (or LO) and it seems highly unlikely that they sum to become a larger tendency. As your edit stands, it represents an IST POV, rather than the NPOV consensus. Warofdreams 6 July 2005 13:27 (UTC)
Comparing membership is complicated by the FI's complex organisational form. Who, for example, is counting the size of the currents inside other broader organisation? However, there are some substantial FI currents in the developing world, as well as in France. We need only mention Sri Lanka and the Phillipines. --DuncanBCS 09:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Somebody has insisted on editing out my attempt to make the size claims more NPOV. If it is necessary to keep in the fact that the rFI claims to contain 80% of the world's self-identified Trotskyists, it is necessary to balance that by pointing out that the claim doesn't jell at all with the (frankly more credible) claims of half a dozen other Trotskyist groups to be of similar size. 17:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

For some reason a USFI member, DuncanBCS, insists on editing out any attempt to make the laughable claim that the USFI contains 80% of the world's Trotskyists more NPOV. (1) No reference is given to the USFI actually making such a claim, and I would be honestly surprised if they are crazy enough to do so. (2) In no individual country with any remotely significant Trotskyist movement, do the USFI/rFI/whatever account for 80% of the self-described Trotskyists. This necessarily means that they could not amount to 80% worldwide. In fact I doubt if they amount to much more than 10%. (3) Taking for a moment a few of the larger self-described Trotskyist organisations around the world which belong to other international currents: the British SWP and Socialist Party, the French LO and Lambertistes, the Algerian Lambertistes, the Nigerian CWI, the IMT in Pakistan, the PSTU in Brazil. Between just these 8 organisations we are dealing with an absolute minimum of 15,000 members (and probably many, many more). Now even if we were for the sake of argument to exclude all of the hundreds of other Trotskyist groups around the world, even if we were to say that the 30 or 40 other CWI sections, 20 or 30 other IMT sections, 20 or 30 IST groups, dozens of Lambertist or Morenoist groups have not one single member between them, the existence of those 8 groups alone makes the supposed claim by the USFI an utter nonsense. Because it would mean that the USFI has 75,000 members. Is anyone seriously going to argue something so patently ludicrous? Now really. If some USFI supporter really, really wants to include reference to this 80% claim and can reference the fact that the claim is actually made, then I have no objection to including it. But it is ludicrous to include the claim without pointing out that it is completely mad. 21:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I think I haven't been clear enough about by problem with your edit; sorry for that. My disagreement is not with editing out that claim, but your adding in a word like dubious without any references to support it. I didn't add in this claim; it's been there for years. Of course, no membership figures can be verified for any of these tendencies. However, no tendency does describe itself as being larger and, for example, on the CWI page we accept the CWI's claim that it is the second largest, after the reunified Fourth International. I suggest that we remove both the 80& claim and your 'dubious' term, and note instead that it is regarded as the largest Trotskyist tendency. --Duncan 07:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Duncan, one would seriously claim the USFI has "80%" of the world's Trotskyists, even excluding the Cliffite IST. The CWI is probably as big, as it the IMT (Grant/Woods). My exprience with the FI (La Verite) would give the USFI a run for it's money in several countries, including Algeria, Mexico, most West African countries, etc. In fact, I'd say the USFI has about 30% of the worlds self-proclaimed Trotskyists at best. Really, if you include Morenoism, Lambertism, Grantites and others AND the dissolving of many of it's sections in Asia and Latin America (Mexico, for example, it has only one group with about 24 members) then it's hard to argue it has many members at all outside Brazil, Pakistan (if you want to include the LPP) and France.

David Walters —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

David, yes - that's we we removed that in 2006. The largest section is probably in either the Philippines or Sri Lanak. The Mexican group maintains an impressive magazine and newspaper, so I think it;s larger than 24. We really only get perfect data at the world congresses. --Duncan (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Workers' Party not there in 1963?! So what?[edit]

Warofdreams has done some lovely work on this page, and corrected some of my excesses, but why point out that the WP was not at the reunification congress?

The WP dissolved in 1947, and the idea that the ISL tendency was organised enough to have discussed the option at that time is counter-intitive. What is clear is that would have no interest in reunifying, given the politics of the USFI on defensism, Cuba, Algeria, Vietnam. One may as well point out that the ILP and RSAP were not there. Since the WP is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, I think think it's a distraction.

The ISL was probably busy that week, arguing that the AFL/CIO needed a workers' bomb to fight Stalinism [lol]. --DuncanBCS 16:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your work on the article; as you noticed, it has previously been edited by a very enthusiastic SEP supporter. If we're going to have a list of Trotskyist groups who weren't at the conference, let's have a list. If not, let's leave it out. For sure, the ISL wouldn't have wanted to reunite with the ISFI/ICFI, but they regarded themselves as Trotskyists, unlike (say) the ILP, who never had. Incidentally, one thing I'm not clear on, is whether the LSSP were present at the 1963 Congress. Can you shed any light? thanks, Warofdreams talk 17:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • In the article I listed the FI sections that were absent: despite being invited, it's surprising that IC or IS groups failed to attend. It's no surprise that non-FI groups were not there. For example, LO wasn't there [though they do observe USFI congresses now] for example, but for the ISL to have been there would have been unacceptable on both sides. The LSSP almost certainly attended the 1963 congress: remember that they had made proposals for parity bodies, open discussion and joint congresses from the beginning of the split, and generally played a good role despite being played a little by both sides. Their absence was noted from the 61 congress but not the 63 congress, and 61 could have been as simple as an illness, no money or a visa problem. There were very deep discussions between the IS and the LSSP at that time on how they could take the united front tactic into government: if they had played it differently, they felt Sri Lanka could have gone the same way as Algeria or Cuba. The IS and USFI were supportive of the LSSP, but hard on the 'revisionist' leaders. Indeed, even after 3/4ths of the party supported entry into the government, the FI was careful to focus on individuals at first, rather than write off the whole section. That, at least, was a welcome return to the norms of the 30s after Pablo's excesses. P.S. Honestly, the articles that reflect SEP-type POV are very frail. I don't think they really reflect all the nuance that IC tradition had and basically boil the difference down to the question of whether or not Trotskyists are organizationally separate - and that skips over the question of programme. --DuncanBCS 18:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks for the clarification and the details on the LSSP - I've mentioned this in the article. Yes, the SEP-POV articles are generally lacking; they were generally pretty stubby before they got expanded with most of the ICFI programme. I've tried to NPOV some, but haven't made much of an effort to explore the nuance of the debate - so thanks for your contributions. Warofdreams talk 19:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge this into 'Fourth International'?[edit]

There's not much on the FI page after 1963, when this page starts. Although Trotskyists outside the FI argue that the FI had lapsed into centrism at some time in the past, few - if any - question the organisational continuity reflected by the reunification congress. Merging the two pages could also allow a much clearer structure: summarising eents between the successive world congresses. What do people think? We would have to be careful to flag up the other currents that have moved into and out of the USFI current.

The last World Congress adopted new statutes, which means that there no longer is a committee called the United Secretariat. Merging the pages would also avoid a lot of the hassle asociated with that.

Comments? --DuncanBCS 18:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No, there is should be a distinction between the original FI of Trotsky and the later FIs. As I'm sure you're aware USec is one of several organizations claiming to be the inheritors of the original FI, and that there is hardly a consensus on recognizing USec as the original FI. --Soman 18:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
But don't the others claim to be the political continuity of Trotskyism, while onyl the USFI claims to be the Fourth International? The 1963 congress brought together almost every current that had atteneded the 1951 Third World Congress. Organisationally, the USFI *is* the FI in the same sense that the today's Socialist International is the Second International. Any other comments? --DuncanBCS 19:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
No...not really. The Lambertists use "Fourth International" and claim absolute continuity with the FI from 1938. All there sections are publically noted as "section of the FI..." The "reproclaimed" the Fourth International in 1993 and number their congresses from 1938. Additionally, if the Vargarite "FI" still exists, they also claimed fro 1973 or so to BE the Fourth International but obviously given their size it's a little absurd.DavidMIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I oppose a merger. We have separate articles on the Second International and the Socialist International. The organisational continuity gives the USFI a good claim to be the Fourth International, but this is not accepted by the majority of Trotskyists outside the organisation. Rather than accept the USFI's position, however well founded it may seem, we need a NPOV position with separate articles; the issue of continued existence can be raised in each. Warofdreams talk 20:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Good point. I'll drop the merge flags. Thanks to you and Soman for the quick replies. --DuncanBCS 23:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The roots of the ICFI and ISFI[edit]

Do we need this? can't we just incorporate it into 'Fourth International' and then add links? --DuncanBCS 18:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

How deal with the rename?[edit]

In 2003, the World Congress replaced the USec and IEC with an 'International Committee' and a 'Bureau'. So, what should we call this organisation now? Any suggestions? How about Fourth International (post-1963)? --DuncanBCS 15:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I might be obliged to agree with you (that's the preferred usage among my comrades in the ISO), but I think that most people who care about these distinctions still talk about ‘USec’ or someting of that sort, which I find clearer. After all, I don't think the USFI ever referred to itself as the USFI. Rafaelgr 01:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed. The committee was refered to as the USec but, inside the International, calling it the USFI was a sign that you were an outside! Let's wait a week to see if others comment, and then go ahead. --Duncan 10:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with Rafael; calling it the USFI seems clearer, although I can see the argument for moving it. The introduction should make it clear that this isn't the official name of the organisation. Warofdreams talk 00:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to move ahead with this. In an article on Freedom and Revolution we found ourselves discussing a resolution by the International Committee of the USFI, which is quite confusing. I suggest we move this page to Fourth International (post-1963) or to reunified Fourth International. Can anyone think of a better name? --Duncan 08:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I have requested the move. This is what I have written... United Secretariat of the Fourth International → reunified Fourth International … Rationale: We seem to have agreement for this on the Talk page. The majorities of the two halves of the Fourth International reunified in 1963. The new leadership body of that organisation was the United Secretariat, and the name by which the International was often refered to. That organisation has replaced its United Secretariat with an international bureau and an international committee. --Duncan 17:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Moved it to Reunified Fourth International. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 15:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
On a similar note, we need some consistency in the acronym. It's fair enough to want to get rid of the USFI acronym given that the USFI body has been renamed, but using the acronym FI is as confusing and loaded as using the name Fourth International. There are, as has been pointed out, a number of organisations which claim to be / represent the continuity of / be rebuilding / be the leadership of / whatever the Fourth International. Some people may agree with the artists formerly known as the USFI that their claim is best, some may not. Either way its best to avoid taking sides on this by "awarding" the acronym to one group. I've changed the acronyms to rFI, in keeping with what seems to be the generally agreed title for the article. 17:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that's very urgly, and quite incomprehensible since that useage would be unique to Wikipedia. Let's call it the reunified FI. --Duncan 11:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

LCR debate??[edit]

I don't understand this.. This debate has been mirrored in other sections, in particular the Revolutionary Communist League, whose 16th congress (in 2006) saw a heated debate on the LCR's relationship to the rest of the French far left. As I understand it, the debate in the LCR is not about participation in bourgois governments. In what was is the LCR debate connected to the sort of crisis in the PT and LSSP? --Duncan 22:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Duncan is completely right. I deleted the sentence about LCR in that section. Bertilvidet 20:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just had one of my edits reverted. On closer reading of the article I can see why. The sentence stating that the founding was in 1963 is immediately followed by a sentence that appears to contradict that. On closer reading I can see that it does not contradict it at all. But the fact that I did have to look it over again must mean that it is a bit unclear. Perhaps some attention should be paid to how it could be reworded to make sure it is more clear. Dolaro 01:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Why did somebody edit the piece on outside criticisms so as to remove reference to the initial support of the (then) USFI for its sections governmental role in Brazil, so as to make it seem as if the international opposed taking part in the government from the start? Also I edited the criticism which some other Trotskyists make of the rFI/government issue for accuracy - the key point in the criticism is that these are coalition governments which involve outright capitalist governments.

The above comment was unsigned. There's a range of stances from support to opposition; The FI didn't raise public criticism initailly, but there certainly was a clear and comradely debate. The change at the FI wasn;t of their attitude, but of what they said publicly. --Duncan 09:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Party of Communist Action[edit]

The article claims that FI-supporters in Syria work within Party of Communist Action. I doubt that. Anyone who care to make this statement probable? Bertilvidet 14:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should cut that. If it's the case, there are no references to it. Probabaly most FI supportes in Syria are in jail. --Duncan 09:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, those who currently are out of jail work within Antiglobalization Activists in Syria. Bertilvidet 09:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a long time ago now but yes FI members in Syria were in the Party of Communist Action. Anybody who bothered to try to find out would have seen that we published articles about that party in our press making it fairly clear. One of the leading membr attended at least one FI leadership meeting after he came out of prison. He now is in contact with the younger generation who are in the Revolutionary left current as of 2013. PhilomenaO'M (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


Please explain the proposed merge. Why was a merge proposed rather than just inserting {{main|reunified Fourth International}} in the short section this article supposedly should be merged into? MrZaiustalk 09:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a crisis in the leadership of the 4th International between Trotsky's death and criticism of "Pabloism" but, as it never has been dissolved, after partial reunification of the majority of members of the International, the new USec/USFI is the de facto and de jure Organizational continuity and rightful successor to ISFI which was established by the 4th International as its core instrument for global organization.
Of course, some groups remain outside of this partial reunification, as they believe that the "errors" that were the cause of their splitting remain unrectified, that's why I further move that a template be created for a simplified "family tree" of Trotskyist groups stemming from the Fourth International to show the provenance of these groups, their scattering and later realignments and regroupments.
But for the purposes of continuity, in my opinion, the reunified 4th Int'l should be incorporated with the rest of the article with consolidated history of the 4th International after Trotsky's death; OR, BETTER, a summary be given in the article and further elaboration (of the Trotskyist diaspora) spun-off into a new article, so that the general outline of the post-merge article would be:
Historical Background
1st world congress
2nd world congress
-After Trotsky's death
        --overview of the crisis, consequences and subsequent split (continuing)
        --partial reunification
        --Link to Organizations stemming from the Fourth International   /optional/
5th world congress

—-— .:Seth Nimbosa:. (talkcontribs) 10:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the merger. --Duncan 16:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Internationalsocialistreview.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Internationalsocialistreview.jpg 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

move of Reunified Fourth International to United Secretariat of the Fourth International[edit]

This mage has been moved without raising it on the Talk page. I disagree with that. We had a long discussion prior to moving this page. Moving the page without winning consesus to move way from a previously agreed name for the page is not how Wikipedia works. I suggest tha page is moved back, then we have a dicsussion, and only move then page when there is consesus. --Duncan (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. 'USFI' is not perfect as a title given that executive body no longer exists although that's what it's usually referred to to distinguish it from the other FI's (Lambertist, Posadist, ICFI). My problem with 'Reunified FI' is that no one afaik calls it that, including themselves. I accept that the USFI is the organisational continuation of the 1938 FI given the 1963 reunification included most Trotskyist groups except the Healyites and Lambertists and would be happy for it to be merged with the main 'FI' page with sections on splits from it before and after 1963 such as the Pabloites and Morenoites.Haldraper (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
"Reunified Fourth International" is awkward here, and Haldraper is right to point out that it is not, in fact, used by anyone. Although the "United Secretariat" no longer exists, it remains the only useful way of distinguishing it from the Lambertist, Posadist or other claimants to be "the FI." This article uses the term "Fourth International (United Secretariat); could that be a potential compromise title? Cadriel (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Gerry's article was written when there still was a United Secretariat. I think that misses the point. --Duncan (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'd go with FI (US). The opening section makes clear that the leading bodies are now called the IC/IB rather than USec but that's what it's still generally referred to as. I can't think of a better way of distinguishing it from the other FI's than by calling it the USFI, maybe add '1963' as well.Haldraper (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That is problematic, because it is anti-FI POV to refer to the international as the United Secretariat. We came very close to agreement to merge this article into the main FI article because it is the legal and organisational continuity of the FI of 1938. There is no United Secretariat and, when it existed, that was the name of one of its leaderhsp bodes and not the name of the organistion. The FI, of course, does not call itself the reunified FI. It calls itself the FI. --Duncan (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Duncan, I don't accept that it's anti-FI POV to call it the FI(US) or USFI. I accept that it's the continuation of the 1938 FI and the only reason I'd call it the USec is to distinguish it from other Trotskyist internationals that call themselves the FI like the Posadists, Lambertists and ICFI. Two options occur to me: either merge into into main FI page or call it 'FI (1963)' to make clear its the reunified body.Haldraper (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm mostly with Haldraper on this. It's not anti-FI to call it the USFI; it's just a shorthand, known by most folks familiar with Trotskyism, to denote that you are talking about the specific incarnation of the Fourth International that was reunited in 1963 and operated until 2003 under the primary direction of a governing body called the United Secretariat. Calling the article "United Secretariat of the Fourth International" would be problematic, in that the organization as a whole has always claimed to be the FI and not a secretariat - and in this it differs somewhat from the ICFI - but "Fourth International (United Secretariat)" is simply using the historical association to be clear which body we are talking about. It is less POV than folding the article into the "Fourth International" article would be; and the "Reunified Fourth International" is arguably pro-FI POV. Cadriel (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
How about 'Fourth International (1963)' as the page name then? Haldraper (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
'Fourth International (1963)' is better than 'Reunified Fourth International' by a fairly long shot. It's not as recognizable to most familiar with the subject as the "United Secretariat" designation but it does appropriately disambiguate the group from others claiming to be the FI. I'd go with it if Duncan wouldn't consider it anti-FI POV and remains against 'Fourth International (United Secretariat)'. Cadriel (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Assuming we move the page to 'FI (1963)', I think we could reword the opening as follows: "The current Fourth International was created in 1963 by the reunification of the majorities of the two public factions of the Fourth International: the International Secretariat (ISFI) and the International Committee (ICFI). It is sometimes still described by other Trotskyists as the United Secretariat of the Fourth International (USFI or USec), which was its central body from 1963 until 2003 when the secretariat was replaced by an Executive Bureau and an International Committee. Its largest sections are in France, Brazil and the Philippines. It is thought to be the largest revolutionary socialist international grouping." Any thoughts? Haldraper (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Given no one has objected, I'm assuming we've reached consensus on the move to 'FI (1963)'. I will also rewrite the intro as above.Haldraper (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hold on a second! I was a away for the weekend, and had made it clear that I thought we needed to reach consesus on this before moving the page. This page is the product of a number of suthors, and there is no rush. The page has been on its current (reunified) name for some time. I have to state that it's totally POV to say the FI was created in 1963. The FI has existed continually, but split into two public factions. It did not stop exisiting. Its organisational and legal continuity has been continuous since 1938. I am adding a POV tag to the article and request other editors consider restoring the page to its previous name and text until consensus has been agree on this page. --Duncan (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the current FI is the organisational descendant of the one created in 1938 but not in a straightforward way: it's a bit Jesuitical to argue that the FI existed as a unified body between the split of 1953 and reunification of 1963 because the ISFI and ICFI were only 'public factions' given they operated independently as in effect rival Fourth Internationals. The creation of the USFI in 1963 reunified the large majority of the ISFI (minus the Posadists) and the ICFI (minus the Healyites/Lambertistes) and thus healed the schism and restored the continuity with the 1938 FI that neither the ISFI or the ICFI could lay exclusive claim to before that.Haldraper (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The continuity is quite straightforward legally and organisationally. The IC organised as a public faction which withdrew from the IS. The IS just continued; no new constitution, no new back accounts, the jounals continued and so on. The IC never really had a structure: no world congresses, no independent finances and so on. It really had only the structures of a faction. In practice, there was nothing other than the national groups to fold back in. The IC did not, and the Northite one still does not, call itself a Fourth International. It considered itself to be a leadership of the FI. The idea that the current FI was created in 63 is certainly anti-FI POV. It would be better, as you suggested on my Talk page, to merge this page into the main FI page. If you agree, I'll post a merge tag,--Duncan (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Duncan, please post a merge tag. I concede that 'FI (1963') is not adequate but then neither is 'Reunified FI' or 'USFI' so this seems the best option.Haldraper (talk) 08:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Since we cannot find consensus on a new title for this page or merge it anywhere else, I will move it back to reunifed Fourth International, since that is the last title on which these was any consensus, and it was moved that that title to other titles without consensus on this page.--Duncan (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Duncan, I dispute that there was any consensus in the latest discussion to revert to Reunified FI. In fact, I'm sure you were the only person to think that it was an appropriate title. I still think it is a massive problem to have a title that no one has ever used, including the organisation itself. I have therefore moved it to Fourth International (post 1963) to make clear it is about the history of the FI founded in 1938 after it reunified with part of the IC in 1963. I think the new title avoids any anti-FI POV although it does suggest that the USFI is the FI which you and I agree on but others will not. I therefore also propose that a merge is still the best long-term answer.Haldraper (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)'s not cool for people to keep moving the article back and forth. We should agree on a single solution before anyone moves forward with any major action. I am personally for the "Fourth International (United Secretariat)" title because, while I am generally (not officially) a supporter of the FI, I recognize that there is some historical ambiguity, and am seriously interested in the neutrality question here on Wikipedia. When you mention the FI, you are invariably asked "which one?" And the truth is that "United Secretariat" will always answer the question. I feel that it's different from titling the article "United Secretariat of the Fourth International," which is misleading, as that's the now-defunct body that directed the FI for 40 years. We're disambiguating, because "Fourth International" is touchy ground for Trotskyists outside of the FI (you know which one). "Reunified Fourth International" isn't used by anybody. "Fourth International (1963)" posits a 1963 founding that didn't really happen. "Fourth International (United Secretariat)" is also parallel to Fourth International (ICR), where the organization identifies itself as "The Fourth International" but the article uses a no-longer-present body to disambiguate it. Any move at this point is going to be, in some respect, not entirely neutral in its point of view. Given that reality, I think that recognizing convention and using the United Secretariat, while clearly explaining the nomenclature issues up front in the article, remains the best way to present the FI as it has been since 1963. Cadriel (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The page has been, for a long time, reunified Fourth International. It was moved without winning agreement on this page. Until we get consensus, I think it's normal and proper to keep it on the title on which there was was consesus. So, to answer Haldraper's point, there might not have been consesus for me to move from a title that was unagreed to some other title that was also not agreed. But the title I moved it to was the last agreed title: the status quo. I'm against the United Secretariat title, and not only because it has to be used in the past tense. There is no other organisation which claims to be the FI of 1938, and organisationally and legally there is no other organisation. Certainly, 'post 1963' is better, but perhaps post-reunification is better still. Then we could also move over the post-reunification section from the main FI article, which duplicates this one. --Duncan (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding POV tag[edit]

I am adding a POV tag. This article is not about the United Secretariat, which was the leadership of the Fourth International from 1963 to 2003. This article is about the Fourth International itself from the reunification in 1963 up to the present day. The title 'United Secretariat', when used to describe the FI as a whole, is anti-FI POV since it suggests that the International is only its leadership, and that is is not organisational continuity of the FI established in 1938. --Duncan (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned about the title of the article, and have moved it to this title as nobody had previously given any specific objections to it. I'm not trying to impose this title, and will be very happy to get agreement on what should be used. Fourth International (United Secretariat) is the most neutral title which I can think of, for the reasons I explained above, but I'd be happy with any title which is clear and not overly objectionable to anyone. Warofdreams talk 13:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Duncan, I still have to disagree with the idea that it is POV. Every polemic and newspaper article that needs to disambiguate the FI we are talking about from other groups claiming to be the FI or represent its political heritage, uses the United Secretariat, which was its leading body for four decades, to distinguish it. I believe that there are two highly POV options: calling the article "United Secretariat of the Fourth International," which is problematic and anti-FI POV, and merging it into the article Fourth International, which you have advocated and which would also be POV. "Fourth International (United Secretariat)" is the option which most closely aligns with how it is described outside of its own internal discourse. My objection to "Reunified Fourth International" is that, at this point, we are essentially inventing ways to name something so as to avoid the most commonly used terminology. I don't believe that fits in with Wikipedia's policies. Cadriel (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not a supporter of the FI but I do accept that it is the organisational continuation of the body proclaimed in 1938: no other Trotskyist international claims to be afaik. I therefore have no problem with a merger into the main FI page and the other groups that have split from it having their own pages. However if no consensus can be reached for that my preferences would be: 1. FI (post-reunification) 2. FI (post-1963) or 3. FI (US), as now, which while less accurate than the other two is a common shorthand used by Trotskyists to distinguish the FI from other international groupings and is not necessarily POV.Haldraper (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
That's the funny thing in all this to me...I am a supporter of the FI. (Informally - I'm in a group that has FI supporters and that's where I am closest to.) I'm just trying to be realistic and get this article the clearest name it can have. If Warofdreams agrees with the title "Fourth International (Post-Reunification)" and if it'd stop this back and forth for a while, I'd be okay with that. But we need to stick with whatever we wind up using. Cadriel (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I can live with Fourth International (post-reunification). On Cadriel's point, I think that it's mistaken. The most polemical opponents of the FI call it the USec but, here in Britain, the SWP and Communist Party have no trouble calling it the Fourth International. Of course there is an non-POV use of the term, and that's to refer the committee itself, to resolutions adopted by it and do on. It's it's agreed, I'll retitle the mage in this way, and most the post-63 stuff from the main article to here, leaving a short extract to point to there. I'll add a note to the top of FI saying that this page deals with the pre-1963 history of the FI, and for post 63 they can look here. --Duncan (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like the best solution to me, Duncan.Haldraper (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy enough with that title; while there may be material in Fourth International which could be duplicated here, I can't see much which would be worth removing from that article, as the post-1963 info is about the continuing idea of the Fourth International, and how widely accepted the claims of this group to be the Fourth International are. Any note will also need more thinking about. Incidentally, I don't think your point about the SWP is really correct; while they may have on occasion called the group the "Fourth International", a search of their website doesn't turn any uses up; on the one occasion when they refer to the organisation, they call it the "United Secretariat of the Fourth International". Warofdreams talk 08:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
In the letter they sent to the FI in 1990 to leave the FI, they certainly called it the FI. And that's also the case in the IIDB, in New International and so on. When they refer to the USFI, It's clearly to the committee, not to the International: to resolutions it adopted, to comrades delegated to serve on it... [2]. And there are several references to the post-reunification FI which calls it the FI [3], [4], [5], [6] --Duncan (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
All right...I moved the article and removed the POV tag. Hopefully this settles the name issue for a while and actual work on the content can follow. Cadriel (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sizeable sections[edit]

An anonymous user has expanded the list of countries in which the FI has large sections to include Sweden, Italy and Sri Lanka. Is there any evidence of this, can we have it referenced?Haldraper (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sri Lanka most certainly; it's hard to give hard membership figures but the group is either in the low 4 figires or high 3 figures. The Italian group is around 600 or 700 I think. I don't think the Swedish party is so large; I don;t think it's as big as the German section. I thought it was the same size as the Spanish. I'll remove Sweden. --Duncan (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What Reunification?[edit]

The title appears to be an attempt to perpetrate a fraud (of a unified FI). Article should be moved to Fourth Internationsl (post 1963), as suggested above . Lycurgus (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have some references to suggest that there was not a reunification in 1963? The articles suggest that the reunification was supported by a majority of the sections on both sides, that led by the IS and that led by the IC. If you have something to suggest that this is not the case, then we should consider a rename. --Duncan (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Current member organizations[edit]

This is of member organisations is too large. The lost of organisations with FI links is here: [7]. Organisations which are not on this list should be removed. In particular, the ISM, DSP and ISO have never been permanent observers. I propose to remove the organisations which are not on the IV list. --Duncan (talk) 07:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In line with a previous comment I made - that the decision to remove from the list all organisatins not in the IVP list was mistaken because that is a list of links, it does not claim to be an exhaustive list - I have reinstated organisations that are in fact member, sympathis ing or Observer. I had asked Duncan to do this but he's travelling at the moment. PhilomenaO'M (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just found this. I dunno that it is section or sympahthisers.[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gejzir (talkcontribs) 17:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a Permanent Observer organisation - now figuring in the list in International Viewpoint. There has however been confusion created by removing from the list of sections/sympathising organisations here on the Wikipedia page of all groups not in the IVP list. This is an error because the IVp list does not claim to be exhaustive, it just gives links to websites where they exist. The Austrian section for example hasn't changed but does not have a website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilomenaO'M (talkcontribs) 15:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Table[edit]

The following was the result of a discussion concerning the verifiability of organizations with lists or tables of members:

Resolved: Lists or tables of members belonging to a political international or other organization that are unsourced or sourced by self-published sources must be deleted. When an organization claims it has members it is self-serving, and therefore must be deleted under WP:V. Please note that this applies to all organizations with members, including all other political internationals.

Thus, per WP:V, the table of members on this page must be deleted, and remain deleted, until the table can be properly sourced by independent sources.

Regards, Gold Standard 22:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Russian section[edit]

Its Socialist League Vpered, not Vpered. Please, fix the reference in section Sixteenth World Congress: ecosocialism. -- (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


Hi there, I propose breaking up the section under 'The International Today' about the LSSP and PT and moving them into chronological order. These are not issues in the FI today, and they are not really raised. --Duncan (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I have moved that into the chronology. That should make space for opening of the discussion for the 17th world congress next year. --Duncan (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Communist Party of Bangladesh (M-L)[edit]


i doubt that the CPB (M-L) linked to in the article is the one which has permanent observer status within the FI. It would surprise me if the FI had a minister ( ) in the bourgeois cabinet of Bangladesh. Also the statements concerning China from the CPB (M-L) with observer statuas within the FI (see here: ) seems not very similar to the statement of Barua: from the first link: "However, in the course of the liberation war, the Beijing line encountered odd situation. Chairman Mao Zedong took the position against the liberation expected by the people of Bangladesh, defending the side of Pakistani invaders sponsored by the American imperialism." from the second link: "The Communist Party of China is truly a long tested Party, which has acquired rich experiences, learnt many lessons and is capable of leading the people in braving difficulties to win victory after victory in the revolution and economic emancipation."

Also in the "broadleft"-list, the Barua-CPB (M-L) is listed as attending the International Communist Seminar (ICS), a more (post-?)stalinist outfit.

u. -- (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Now someone seems to have edited out the CPB (M-L) and not just the link (there is no wiki-page for this specific CPB (M-L) )?? (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Removing citation/sources tag[edit]

An editor added the multiple issues tag to the page, specifying citation style and unreliable sources. That was in April 2014. The editor did not use the talk page to specify what the issues are. The article has around 50 references, and they are pretty authoritative as far as I can see. I have removed the tags pending a specific comment. --Duncan (talk) 04:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much none of the references in the article are from media or academic outlet. Socialist (Trotskyist) source may be authoritative for in-crowd. But it is not at all be considered reliable or neutral or more importantly, notable to pass wikipedia threshold of inclusion. Whether you like it or not, if you can't find reference in (capitalist) media and (bourgeois) academia, then it shouldn't be part of wikipedia Vapour (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
That's an interesting point of view. The Wikipedia standard is more comprehensive [8]. We look for verifiable, published third party sources, and those in the media and academic sources would be great. There are few of those available but, generally, they are not in the artilce and should be. If anyone has a moment, there's a lot on Google Scholar which can be included[9].--Duncan (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
But unless anyone can point to a specific reference which is unreliable in Wikipedia's terms, I am removing the unreliable sources tag. --Duncan (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)