Talk:List of left-wing internationals

Histrical

The Fourth International does exist: it's not historical.

Yes. I have updated the template to reflect that. Historical is a little opaque: Defunct seems like a better term for organisations which no longer exist. --Duncan (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone has added the FI back in to the defunct section again. with the dates 1938-1963. Clearly the only change in 1963 was the reunification: that makes no sense as a date. --Duncan (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

POV

Labelling one subsection "Communist/Socialist" implies the next subsection is not socialist. When it is, of course, socialist. Jacob Haller 03:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If we feel that anarchism is a form of socialism, then 'Marxist' might be a good alternative for 'Communist/Socialist'. --Duncan 08:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any need to have two lists. I've combined them; the new list is still annotated and is not excessively long. Warofdreams talk 14:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks good to me. And whether or not anarchism must be socialism (a persistent debate), the IWA at least, if not all the anarchist orgs in question, is/are socialist. Jacob Haller 15:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ex-trotskyists

These two tendencies don't fit in the list of Trotskyist tendencies, because they have not been trotskyist for some decades.

• International Leninist Current (ILC)
• Pathfinder tendency, or Communist Leagues aligned with the Socialist Workers Party (US)

However, this page is mainloy about *real* internationals, as opposed to networks and currents of organisations. Should they be added to this page? However, this list is about real internationals, as opposed to networks and currents of organisations. Should they be added to this page? --Duncan (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

ICOR is not an international

As I stated here and here before (without attaining any response so far): Explicitly International Coordination of Revolutionary Parties and Organizations (ICOR) does not consider itself an "International". The reason is, ICOR does not want to repeat errors such as bureaucratic deviations from democratic centralism made by defunct Communist International in its practice but learn from them for recent and coming struggles. At the recent state of its development ICOR considers itself an instrument for organizing international mutual support in coordinating workers' and peoples' progressive struggles and party building of “autonomous, independent and self-reliant” revolutionary organizations. It does not claim to follow the organizational principle of democratic centralism (yet), which would be the principal characteristic of an international following marxist-leninist standards. --Partisan1917 06:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)