Talk:Max Shachtman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heirs and epigones[edit]

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)[reply]

Trotskyist?[edit]

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, [1] --DuncanBCS 13:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Pre-38 history?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Any references to Trotsky being personally close to Shachtman[edit]

Jack has suggested the comment "He also was arguably closest to Leon Trotsky personally of anyone in the American party, especially during Trotsky's years in Mexico." I can't find any references to anyone arguing this. Indeed, the idea that Trotsky was personally close to anyone in the SWP is not self-evident. However, it's worth remembering that Shachtman was a major thorn in Trotsky's side at times, especially during the years of the ILO. For example, Trotsky complained to the SWP that they did not have reliable representative in the ILO's leadership at a time when Shachtman was the CLA's representative. Shachtman was also nominated as Trotsky's literary agent (which simply reflects that he was the sort of person who could mix easily with publishers) and conducted that role a little awkwardsly, even misleading Trotsky for long periods over errors Shachtman made in those complex business dealing. Shachtman was close to Natalia Sedov Trotsky after both he and she had split from the FI: that is a different question. Any other ideas? --DuncanBCS 20:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to all the points you acknowledged, I also base the statement on the fact that Shachtman spent more time in Mexico than Cannon, and that the only other whose personal relationship with Trotsky rivaled his was Albert Glotzer, who was extremely loyal to Shachtman. I'll leave its inclusion or exclusion from the article to you.
I feel, however, that it is important to have some emphasis of just how close he was to Trotsky, which is critical in relation to the history and origins of neoconservatism.
Jacrosse 03:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your information is a basis on which to say that Shachtman was often in Mexico. However, "personally close" means more than physical proximity. Trotsky was much more critical of Shachtman than of Cannon: on the disputes in the ILO (where Shachtman opposed Trotsky's line, and even supressed documents), on issues like the labour party, on the Russian question, and on organisational disputes - where Shachtman's clique had developed very different conclusions and habits from Cannon. Cannon spent little time with Trotsky, probabaly none in the ILO years when money was tight (Shachtman visted Europe on holiday), Cannon had personal crises and when Shachtman and then Swabeck were assigned the roles of co-ordinating with Trotsky. I think it's key to realise that writing to, or visiting, Trotsky was a political task assigned by the American section, rather than a question of personal closeness. --Duncan 12:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If personal closeness is not defined merely by physical proximity, it is also not defined merely by closeness of political perspective. Your description of Trotsky being closer to Cannon is correct for the years before coming to Mexico, there is a significant body of evidence suggesting Trotsky was moving toward Shachtman's views at the time of his death.--Jacrosse 16:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's excellent news. If you can provide some references, then we could assess that. That could suggest *political* closeness, bit perhaps not political closeness. However, I'll await your references. Thanks!--Duncan 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the best place to read up on it is the Glotzer biography of Trotsky, it cites the letters of Trotsky toward that end and also discusses his widow's identification with Shachtman.--Jacrosse 15:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Could provide actual references (quotes, or page numbers) to the statement of personal closeness between these two men? It is not evidenced by the relationship with his widow. --Duncan 21:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through Glotzer's biography of Trotsky and find nothing in it to support Jacrosse's additions: nothing in the book suggests any closeness between the to. If anything, the book underplays the contact between the two. ----Duncan 21:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your research, Duncan. I'd suggest that this and the other disputed material be removed unless it can be properly cited. --metzerly 00:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there is a significant body of evidence suggesting Trotsky was moving toward Shachtman's views at the time of his death.--Jacrosse 16:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I guess you've never read In Defence of Marxism a compilation of some of Trotsky's last writings - polemics against Shachtman during the faction fight that lead to Shachtman's departure from the SWP. In fact, Trotsky and Shachtman were never as far apart as they were in the weeks and months prior to Trotsky's assassination. Please stop making things up Jacrosse. Just because you have a pet theory about neoconservativism doesn't justify making up some facts and torturing others in order to make them fit your conspiracy theory. Homey 01:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a useful summary by Joseph Hansen of Trotsky's final views on the Shachtman movement. It is online here but I found it in 'Leon Trotsky: the man and his work', a 1969 Merit book which included Ernest Mandel's article of the same name. --Duncan 12:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Defence of Marxism was and is a factionally motivated compilation of Trotkys final writings. There are other writings from the same period which indicate that he was far more critical of Stalins Russia than the Cannon faction of the SWP was. These writings do not mean that he was moving towards a position closer to that of Shactman on that question if only because at that point in tme Shachtman continued to hold to Trotskys positions only changing his own position in 1941 after the death of Trotsky. It may be that Trotsky was moving towards a rejection of his understanding of Russia as a degenerated workers state, at least some of his writings on Finland and on the nationalisation of oil in Mexc=ico suggest this, but given his murder that can never be known for certain.

The relationship between Natalya Sedova and Shachtman after the death of Trotsky means nothing politically. More significant by far were her relations with Victor Serge, with whom LDT had broken before his death,, and with Grandizo Munis. - Jock Haston 11/4/06

A letter date December 20, 1939 from Mexico is directed from Leon Trotsky to Max Shachtman[edit]

December 20, 1939

Dear Comrade Shachtman

I am sending you a copy of my last article. [2]You will see from my polemics that I consider the divergences as of decisive character. I believe that you are on the wrong side of the barricades, my dear friend. By your position you give courage to all the petty-bourgeois and anti-Marxist elements to fight our doctrine, our program, and our tradition. I don’t hope to convince you with these lines, but I do express the prognosis that if you refuse now to find a way towards collaboration with the Marxist wing against the petty-bourgeois revisionists, you will inevitably deplore for years and years the greatest error of your life.

If I had the possibility I would immediately take an airplane to New York City in order to discuss with you for 48 or 72 hours uninterruptedly. I regret very much that you don’t feel in this situation the need to come here to discuss the questions with me. Or do you? I should be happy.

L. TROTSKY, Coyoacan, D.F. Notes

1. This letter was written by Trotsky in English.

2. The article referred to is A Petty-Bourgeois Opposition in the Socialist Workers Party. – Ed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.45.99 (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to Shachtman as "my dear friend", would seem to indicate a closer relationship than the formal "Dear Comrade Shachtman", which may be a reflection of a growing distance between them - and, of course, it is the case that within months the relationship had broken down.
Earlier Shachtman had spent a lot of time with Trotsky, e.g. he accompanied the Trotskys during their move to France and he also visited T regularly in Mexico. Shachtman was also entrusted with several political missions, e.g. strengthening relations with the nascent British Trotskyist movement. Whether this reflects a close personal relationship going beyond the close political collaboration is hard to say. Since the above letter is written in English it's impossible to judge - if it had been written in Russian we would be able to see whether Trotsky used the formal or the informal mode of address. Perhaps there are other letters written by Trotsky to Shachtman in Russian (after all, Shachtman translated several of Trotsky's works from Russian) - if there are these would reveal how close they were to each other. --Mia-etol (talk) 05:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No grounds to say "close" to Trotsky[edit]

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)[reply]

  • I have deleted the reworked reference, awaiting any evidence of closeness. --Duncan 16:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the book, Main Currents of Marxism, by Leszek Kolakowski, 2005, ISBN 0393060543, 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)[reply]

Article clean-up[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I've corrected "Albert Shanker (president of the American Federation of Teachers to Albert Shanker (president of the United Federation of Teachers), which is historically correct for the time period under discussion. Albert Shanker moved to the AFT in 1974 —Preceding unsigned comment added by leighm@leighm.net71.146.21.123 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Dogru144 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

Okay, I will likely be seeking mediation because Jacrosse continues to remove large amounts of info and inserting POV statements such as this:

"Indeed, it has often been suggested that much of the history of neoconservatism can be explained as a classic Leninist takeover of first the American left and then the American right by the followers of Max Shachtman."

--metzerly 00:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a statement of an interpretation that exists, not of fact. I've reverted once more because you still haven't addressed my basic complaint of overcrowding with superfluous information that belongs in other articles. Also, in the intro, to say that Shachtman "moved steadily to the right" inserts a POV that he was sincere, precluding the possibility that he was simply following a Leninist trajectory.--Jacrosse 01:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to be careful to avoid original research. Simply because you think something, it is not a interpretation that needs to be reflected in Wikipedia. The generally accepted idea is that Shachtman moved from being a revolutionary socialist in the 1930s to being a social democrat in the 1950s. The idea that a Leninist trajectory would have involved pretending to be a cold war supporter in order to rise in the SP is original: bot as an outline of Shachtman and as a summary of Leninism. Le me be honest, unless we find some other way forward we will may to go through a very long period of referencing almost every reference to Shachtman in this article and then cutting everything else.--Duncan 23:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"a POV that he was sincere, precluding the possibility that he was simply following a Leninist trajectory"
A "Leninist trajectory" was always based upon overtly arguing for political positions. You've simply invented your own definition of "a Leninist trajectory" that suits your fancies. A principal argument made by Trotsky against the People's Front policy of the Comintern during the 1930s was that this involved burying away any overt mention of real Marxist ideas for the sake of pleasing liberal groups. You may accuse Shachtman of following a People's Front policy in his later years if you like. But he certainly did not follow "a Leninist trajectory." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.123.149 (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links in support of my position[edit]

The following links should demonstrate how widely held a view it is that the Shachtmanites never changed their fundamentally Leninist character:

[2] [3] [4] [5]

Jacrosse 15:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

From what I can see both Jacrosse and Duncan have access to a number of treatments of Shachtman in books examining the man as a historical figure. Yet both of them seem to argue back and forth over interpretations of his relationship with Leon Trotsky and his influence on Neoconservatism. Forgive my lack of expertise on the subject but I have a few suggestions on how to resolve the argument and improve the article.

1) The external link below, to the Max Shachtman profile in the "Marxists’ Internet Archive" gives a list of books, pamphlets and articles written by Max himself. Actually containing links to online versions of them. Yet they are not even mentioned in the article at this point. Summarries and quotations from the texts could give any reader a better understanding of his views.

For example the following text from a November, 1933 publication places the blame for the rise of the "Hitlerite savages" to the Stalinists. "The defeat of the German proletariat and its Communist party is the terrifying payment they were forced to make for the demoralization, disorientation and bureaucratic Centrism to which they were subjected for ten years by the Stalinist machine. The German working class must now suffer all the diabolical torture of the Hitlerite savages, and as a consequence, the working class of the entire world is also set back. Not because the triumph of Fascism was inevitable. Quite the contrary. Had the German proletariat been mobilized in the united front movement for which we agitated unremittingly, and for which we were condemned as counter-revolutionists and “social-Fascists,” the Brown Shirts would have been crushed and never have reached the seat of power. The social democrats on the one hand, and the Stalinists on the other, stood like boulders in the path of the working class. Instead of the accelerator of the revolution, the Stalinists acted as a brake upon it."

A 1943 text by Max analyzes both his views on the "new ruling class" and its origins and includes critisism on the views of Trotsky. See: http://www.marxists.org/archive/shachtma/1943/fnc/nc10.htm

An open letter to Trotsky himself in March, 1940 points out their differences in ideology. See: http://www.marxists.org/archive/shachtma/1940/03/crisis.htm

A similar text from April, 1940 analyzes his views on the alliance of Germany and the Soviet Union. "Hitler did not descend upon Poland until he had assured himself not of Stalin’s neutrality but of Stalin’s active support. Poland was defeated and partitioned jointly and by pre-arrange-ment, with Hitler, in accordance with the real relationship of forces between the partners, getting the lion’s share and Stalin the jackal’s. The work of covering Hitler’s eastern flank from possible attack by the Allies or their vassals, was then completed by Stalin’s invasion and subjugation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Far from meeting resistance from Hitler, Stalin was encouraged to proceed along the indicated line in order that Germany might have at its Baltic rear governments no longer subject to the manipulations of Anglo-French imperialism but sterilized governments kept in escrow for him by his friendly sub-partner of the Kremlin". See: http://www.marxists.org/archive/shachtma/1940/04/ussrwar.htm

2) At this point you have privately discussed a number of meetings with Trotsky throughout the 1930s and the increasing tensions in their relationship. Nowhere is their working or political relationship even alluded to in the article. At least the bare bones should be mentioned, if not one or two quotations from either man.

3) Among the other key events of 1939 and 1940 that forced his change of policy there is one not mentioned yet. Do we have any idea of how he viewed the assassination of Trotsky on August 21, 1940?

4) Historical treatment of Max by Glotzer and the other writers you mentioned may form a decent historiographical section. Not necesserarily presenting your views but mentioning the various interpretations available.

5) Can any of you point to specific mention of Max Shachtman and/or his ideas in the writings or speeches of the so-called "neoconservatives" of the last thirty years? Commentators using Shachtman as their link to Trotsky is at best questionable unless the commentators themselves happen to be notable. But if the idea is shared by any number of those supposed successors, this would help solidify it as a concept.

Again remember I am not particularly familiar with the subject. But those were the basic questions that came to mind after my reading of the article. User:Dimadick

Any reading of the following web page [6] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Wolfowitz[edit]

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)[reply]

Also, even if true how does this suggest that Shactmanism influences neoconservatism, rather than something else? --Duncan 10:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Sidney Hook[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My mistake, I was confusing Hook and Bertram Wolfe. I'm still rather dubious about calling Hook a Shactmanite though. Homey 23:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hook was a MUSTYITE, and came around the Trotskyists via the 1934 fusion with the Communist League, where he then met Shactman.DavidMIA 10:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)davidMIA[reply]

Why I reverted[edit]

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)[reply]

Whoops, I'm actually thinking of Bertram Wolfe vis-a-vis being a Lovestoneite.Homey 22:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Jock[edit]

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)[reply]

I don't have the energy to put too much into wikipedia to be frank. I glanced through some entries a few days hence to see how much they have changed since I last put my tuppance in, not much on the whole, but there are plentiful references for Shachtman. Try Alan Walds the new york Intellectuals which includes a short boi of Shachtman for example. Both Wohlforth and Robertson are not to be trusted as their accounts are second hand and they have factional axes to grind. I would suggest a reading of Issermans essay for balance. Novack ditto re the factional axe and all other accounts which I've seen state clearly that other than Burnham everyone who quit the SWP/YIPSL made it into the WP. That is also suggested from my reading of New International and Fourth International too.

WOW[edit]

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)[reply]

A massive and troublesome edit[edit]

Please take a look at this diff [7]. The editor has done some excellent work here, but also removed a huge amount of material and really shifted it in a pro-Shachtman direction. I don't want to revert, because there's valuable material. However, much of the new material is not referenced. Any suggestions on how to proceed? --Duncan (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have the reply below by email from the editor in question. --Duncan (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On my Shachtman edit: sorry, this was my first ever Wikipedia edit, and I'm totally unfamilar with the etiquette. I'm unlikely to do anything this drastic again. I'm willing to discuss what I've done (though I don't know yet how to use the talk or discussion functions). I think everything I removed consisted, as I said in my brief edit summary, of comments by Shachtman's political opponents. These seemed to me a rather underhanded way of circumventing the Wikipedia requirement that entries present a neutral view. If you think the material I added is biased in a positive direction, I'm open to changes that would make it more neutral. Please feel free to share this message with other people working on this entry if you think that's appropriate (I don't know how). Pdruknl Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:52 AM

footnote 25[edit]

"page not found" --Alex1011 (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for Sedova's support of Shachtman's positions[edit]

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:

  1. Leave the citation as-is, relying on the access date and pull quote
  2. Change the URL to link to the MR article itself, either directly or via doi.org
  3. Use the Free Library URL
  4. Supplement the reference with Natalia Sedova's Resignation from the Fourth International, cited in her own Wikipedia article
  5. 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)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Max_Shachtman&oldid=1208614531"