Jump to content

Talk:Lutte Ouvrière

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

SI criticism

[edit]

I have removed this section, pending the appearance of references. It seems to be written by a supporter of the SI current in France. The originators of the group considered that if trotskyism did not have mass support, as Trotsky had beens ure it would soon have, this was because of the petty bourgeois attitudes and behaviour of the trotskyist groups, and it was therefore a priority to establish a (rather rigid view of) "proletarian" morals and discipline in its organization. Thus the group has always been characterized by a negative attitude towards theory (only two or three books published in fifty years), and a rather moralistic view of the personal life of its activists. Comrades are encouraged, for example, not to have children. The politics of Lutte Ouvrière have generally been dominated by a concentration on workplace and economic issues. They ahve been more than reluctant to be interested or involved in political campaigns outside the workplace. So, for example, they denoucne the European Social Forums. Until very recently, they were also notably homophobic - internal memos even recommended not to recruit homosexuals, seen as "psychologically unstable". --Duncan 15:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the supporter of the SI current what wrote it! But these are well known facts and are not criticisms of my current. However, (although the rest of the article is unsourced) I have put back two points with references to Lutte Ouvrière's weekly paper. There is much more - I will try to find time, but, IMHO, LO are rather isolated these days in movements of all sorts in France (student, antiracist, or more traditional union struggles)Johncmullen1960 08:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, I will look forward to seeing what you find time to add. Do be careful not to over-claim. For example, publishing books does not prove or disprove anything about a negative approach toward theory. Can can respect theory even if one does not revise it. One could publish a lot of books but have them have no impact on the organisation (as was the case with Healy) or consider theory to be quite important but to not require many new books, especially when one produces a weekly newspaper, a regular magazine and dozens of pamphlets. --Duncan 18:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

I removed these two sections that are clearly POV oriented. Some statesment are simply wrong. "For long, the internal organisations of the party were largely unknown to the general public, the spokeswoman and regular presidential candidate Arlette Laguiller being the only party leader appearing in public. Even to party members, some leaders were known only code names. Such measures of secrecy were justified by the possibility that the party may have to go into hiding, should there be opportunities for a Communist revolution. For the same reason, marriages and children were (and still are) discouraged. Lutte Ouvrière has thus often been criticised as being sectarian or akin to a cult, for example by Daniel Cohn-Bendit, his older brother Gabriel Cohn-Bendit, L'Humanité and Libération.[1] In part this strict disciplinary attitude has enabled LO to be a very stable organisation in contrast to the instability that characterises so many other left groups. In fact LO is a difficult organisation to actually join and after becoming a member individuals are expected to conform to a code of conduct which is rather old fashioned. However this rigidity has been breached a few times most notably in the early 1970s when a group left influenced by a various ideas to form the short-lived Union Ouvrière grouping. A year later another smaller group left expecting to join UO, which had dissolved in the meantime, and formed the group Combat Communiste. This in turn dissolved although some of its supporters later formed the Socialisme International grouping. " OscarHippe 14:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be worth mentioning the use of party names, and the strict conditions on joining the party, as well as the reasons for these. The section you've removed is badly written, but there is some useful information on the history of the group in there. Warofdreams talk 00:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will add something about party names and so on.
About the history of the group, if you want to do it (I don't know if there are sources about this...)
OscarHippe 07:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added some details concerning splits from LO in the 1970's but these have been edited out. I also changed the order some material appeared as it made little sense chronologically to include material on the principles of LO inbetween passages on its history. These edits have been removed despite being truthful and accurate. So i'm putting them back in until there is a good explanation of why they were removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.183.88 (talk • contribs)

True. I've added them. But why did you remove the headings? And change the order? History comes first. Also, this entry needs clean-up. Going to the point is important, we're not interested in litterature for political parties entries. The article also lacks sources (apart of LO sources, I mean :). Tazmaniacs
PS: I hadn't read the removed section. It is true. And sourced. I therefore restaure it. Tazmaniacs 03:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Removing it a second time without a good reason might lead to an article with 20 sources proving these points, and lots more of precision. Trying to censor things which are well known and for which sources are easy to find is a bad idea (and a good demonstration of your will to accept criticisms :) Tazmaniacs 03:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem here in that one of the most notable things about LO is its strict "moral" code compared to other organizations, yet this is the sort of thing which is little mentioned in published form. Pity to say nothing about it though. Johncmullen1960 09:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you can find some sources stating that LO doesn't allow mariage in its ranks (as one is "married to the Revolution") or things like that... Tazmaniacs 01:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say the removed section is "true and sourced". No, it's not sourced. The whole section is made of unsourced point of views. Please, could you provide a neutral source for each of the following statements:
  • "Even to party members, some leaders were known only by cadre names"
  • "Such measures of secrecy were justified by the possibility that the party may have to enter clandestinity"
  • "LO is a difficult organisation to actually join "
other statements are obviously true and are common to all political parties. They are too vague to actually mean something
  • "the internal organisations of the party were largely unknown to the general public" really? aren't internal organisations supposed to be internal? is it more than other parties' internal organisations? Can a neutral source confirm what are these "internal organisations" that are supposed to be unknown? by the way, what neutral source says that?
  • "after becoming a member individuals are expected to conform to a code of conduct". Isn't it the case in every political party? Aren't militants supposed to behave according to their ideas?
at last, you say "In part this strict disciplinary attitude has enabled LO to be a very stable organisation". Both partis of his statement should be sourced: first LO is not a so stable organisation, second the fact that this supposed stability is rooted in a more strict disciplinary attitude is something I never heard from any far-left specialist and should therefore be sourced.
To Johncmullen, no, marriage is not forbidden in LO, and some members are married. Though, as in many socialist and feminist groups, for ethical, philosophical et practical reasons, marriage is viewed to be disadvantageous to women. See Criticisms of the institution of marriage
OscarHippe 13:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, I did not write most of this section ("you say", etc.). But it is correct. You consider it the right place to ironize about "internal organizations supposed to be internal". Yes, but when you display Arlette Laguiller as leader of the party for decades, and when the general public (including political activists) finally learn that in fact, Laguiller is only a spokeswoman and Robert Barcy is the real leader, this is being a bit more than simply "internal". LO's taste for secret & clandestinity is difficult to contest. "Code of conduct", case in every political party? Well, not so strict a code. I agree with the removal of the sentence "in part this strict disciplinary attitude has enabled LO to be a very stable organisation". Tazmaniacs 15:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You did not source any of the sentences (e.g. "LO is a difficult organisation to actually join "; "Even to party members, some leaders were known only by cadre names"...)
  • "not so strict a code" example please?
OscarHippe 06:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ (in French) "Arlette Laguiller n'aime pas le débat". L'Humanité. April 11, 2002.

LO and the LCR

[edit]

Tazmaniacs, you obviously don't know at all what you are talking about: you introduced 2 obvious mistakes at once!

  • "LO has rejected electoral alliances with other left-wing groups (including the Revolutionary Communist League, LCR". Wrong. LO did accept or proposed electoral alliances with the LCR at least in 1979 (EU parlement), 1999 (EU parlement), 2004 (Regional), 2004 again (EU parlement) and even in 2007 (at least 5 common candidates), and many times in local elections. In addition, LO had alliances with other left-wing groups in the 70' and the 80', and even with the PSU (several alliances during the 70'). LO also proposed (once to my knowledge) an alliance with the Communist Party.
  • "LCR, criticized as being non-revolutionary". Wrong again. Never, never LO wrote or suggested the LCR (or any other leftist group) would not be revolutionary. Some aspects of its politics or behavior may be criticized (as the LCR criticizes LO as well), but what you say is simply wrong. On the other hand, you can easily find some texts where LO claims its solidarity with the LCR (e.g. "nous espérons sincèrement que d’ici la date limite il en trouvera suffisamment pour se présenter car nous espérons vraiment que l’extrême gauche soit représentée par nos deux candidats, Olivier Besancenot et Arlette Laguiller" Lutte de classe, december 2006). About the LCR wish to create a new party, Le Figaro writes "Arlette Laguiller, la porte-parole de LO, dit regarder cette initiative avec « sympathie »".

Things seem to be a little more complicated than you imagined. Please, consider writing on subjects you know something about, or check your information before writing. OscarHippe 07:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Combat communiste

[edit]

I cancelled the last modification because

  • it is far too detailed: this is a LO page, not a Combat Communist page
  • the facts are not even accurate, and there are too many errors to be corrected (e.g. the Combat communist militants are said to join the fraction in 88, while the fraction was created in 95, and so on)

Please, feel free to add SOME selected details if needed, but check your sources first. OscarHippe (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

internal life and methods

[edit]

The article is interesting but there is still no mention of the most characteristic elements of Lutte Ouvrière

(very gradual recruitment methods - years of apprenticehsips; requirement to break with "petty bourgeois" family; strong discouragement of marriage and children; strict discipline). So it is a very weak article for the moment. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry I see some of this has been added, but not enough I feelJohncmullen1960 (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lutte Ouvrière. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lutte Ouvrière. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lutte_Ouvrière&oldid=1208324066"