Talk:Professional revolutionaries
 | This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page: • Leninism Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Leninism |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Merge to Cadre
editShould this article be merged with cadre? Matt 17:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, because a cadre need not be revolutionary. The total failure of the various groups calling themselves Trotskyist to create anything remotely resembling a mass party and their tendency instead to create what can arguably be called cult groups could be noted with appropriate references. Lycurgus (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- "total" is somewhat hyperbolic there have been if not mass at least somewhat more than fringe parties that could be considered Trotskyist, e.g. in Sri Lanka and elsewhere. Lycurgus (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Fringe and variously bankrupt and wedged socialist parties in the early 21st century
editA broad survey of the thread topic will be the basis to flesh out citations requested. The specific critique of what have been called "cults" such as that of David North (wsws.org) or Alan Woods (In Defense of Marxism) should be easy to find and can form a core/centerpiece to the response to the tags. Lycurgus (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- FTR, the named formations, have as a result of circumstances of increasing isolation, developed in a way that does justify such a term although it is not one I would use. In any case it's clear that they and these issues are germane/central to the article and can be used to document the current situation as well as connect it back to its historical antecedents, at least as far back as the time of Marx and Engels, and the wsws.org and marxist.com sites in particular are tirelessly recounting this history. Lycurgus (talk) 09:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Too narrow
editI think this definition of Cadre is too narrow as it excludes part-timers whose level of confidence and education and contributions might warrant them to be considered Cadres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.77.103 (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Grammar
editSurely Cadre is a collective term? You can't say "he's a cadre"; that's like saying "he's a framework"... Shouldn't he be "part of the cadre", or "a member of the cardre" of a specific organisation?