Talk:Michel Pablo

Untitled

" and for the expulsion of comrades who disagreed with this thesis from the FI". I have cut this: I do not think this was the case. In fact, the US SWP was also unclear on this question. Since the FI at this time was stil open to the US Workers Party, it is unthinkable that this claim could have been the case.

I have taken off the analogy between Kruschev's denunciation of stalinism and trotskyist criticisms of Pablo. It lacks a sense f proportion !! Kruschev presided a superpower, the trotskyists who criticized Pablo were a few thousand at most!!

Not only that, it is precisely Pablo's critics like Gerry Healy who were more inclined toward thuggery and suppression of political rights under the banner of hysterical sectarian sanctimony. It bears keeping in mind that Lyndon LaRouche emanated from this mileu and has shown the world the real political nature of this ossified political orthodoxy.

It is alos untrue that "demonization" prevented all discussion of the important issues involved in entryism. Entryism was (and is) seriously discussed in all the major trotskyist organizations. John Mullen

I think that the reference to explusions is to Europe and, in particular, to the break-up of the Revolutionary Communist Party. It would be wrong to suggest that all of Pablo's opponents were expelled, but some were. The question of the WP is different: in order to guarantee the authority of the 1948 world congress, the congress was opened to all those organisations to agree to abide by its decisions. TheWP initally agreed to these conditions. However, this was essentially a dishonest position by the WP, taken to influence the minority around Goldman and Morrow. 'Demonization' seems a fair term: Pablo is akin to the monster children are threated with by their parents. However, the discussion on deep entry, which is Pablo's distinct contribution, has been distorted: Pablo's deep entry is presented by almost all Trotskyist as 'liquidation', this this was clearly not his position. The role of deep entry in preserving and developing the Trotskyist cadres in Britain, France and Italy is universally disputed. --Duncan 11:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

We need a separate page for Pabloism

Clearly. it's something that bigger than Pablo, and which has survived him.

Pablo's activities with the Partisan Resistance in World War 2 and thereafter

Raptis was involved with the Resistance against Nazi occupation and was arrested by the Gestapo and tortured. In addition he was a leading activist in the radical movement against France's war against Algeria's national liberation movement. Later during the 70s he was involved in the radical struggle in Chile, writing a book "Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Chile." He was a close friend and confidant of Jean Paul Sartre and Simon DeBovoir and is truly a godfather of the New Left. Thus the sectarian hype about "Pabloism" for which he had nothing but contempt, is misplaced.Tom Cod 03:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I take a similar approach to you, but I think there's also a danger of a non sequiter. Unlike the sectarians, Pablo was engaged in the real mass struggles. However, that is not the criticism of Raptis. Raptis is criticised because, in the option of critics, he had too much confidence in the ability of the mass struggles to push the mass leaderships onto a revolutionary course. --Duncan 16:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Since "Michel Pablo" is a pseudonym, shouldn't the main article be named after the person's real name? --Kimon^talk 13:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. --Duncan 13:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the move tag above to highlight this proposal. --Kimon^talk 13:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment — Wikipedia tends to follow the most commonly-used name (in reputable sources), not necessarily the most corect. Thus, we don't use Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, his real name, but rather something involving "Lenin". --Stemonitis 14:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Good point, but also the Red Baron is actually listed as Manfred von Richthofen --Kimon^talk 14:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's a new rule to me, but we should follow it. Let's not move. --Duncan 14:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand and would agree with the guideline referred to by Stemonitis. If Michel Pablo is how Raptis is commonly known as, then let's leave it that way and create a redirect from his proper name to this page. I wonder though if in Greece he's known as "Μισέλ Πάμπλο" or with his actual name. --Kimon^talk 14:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I have no idea about the subject, but Googling him (a poor test for such a subject, I admit) reveals his pseudonym to be much more common. Since the article discusses "Pabloism", that lends further credence to the current page being the best. Finally, the Red Baron redirect exists because that is a title, not a pseudonym. The Vladimir Lenin example is much better.
• Comment #2: the article itself would benefit from consistency; in the main text he's referred to as both Pablo and Raptis. Better to pick one or the other to avoid confusion. --DeLarge 09:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• I concede that Pablo is more common than Raptis and the Lenin example convinced me. I agree with DeLarge that whichever is selected, it should be used consistently throughout the article. --Kimon^talk 12:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion, and noting that five days have passed, I've removed the requested move template from this talk page, and I'm delisting the request at WP:RM. It appears that the consensus is not to move this article. I've created redirects at Michalis Raptis and Michalis N. Raptis, in case anybody searches for or links to either of those names. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good --Kimon^talk 12:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Pablo bias?

Anon= A. Need page for Pabloism, much more important than Pablo, who merely gives it it's name, not subservient at all to him, for instance like Stalin and Stalinism which is all over Eastern Hemisphere and Cuban history... even though Stalinists mainly hate the term!

B. "The subsequent hostility of the ICFI to what became known as "Pabloism" became legendary. Pablo was demonised, and made into the exemplar for everything that had been criticised in the Trotskyist movement. Decades later, a few small Trotskyist sects are still writing "anti-Pabloist" tracts." Extremely partisan commentary and language; "demonised" "made into an exemplar" "'anti-pabolist'" "a few small...sects" "still writing...tracts" "Decades later (and yet)" "Hostility...legendary" etc. etc. etc. you have to admire the will here, only a purposeful effort could make a paragraph that biased. Unsigned Comment

Interesting. I'm against a separate page for Pabloism: you can't explain it without explaining Pablo and his views. "Demonised" is a strong term, but is is the case that Pablo was make responsible for everything that when wrong in the Trotskyist movement. eople with whom Pablo disagreed were called Pablists (Cochran, for example). The ICFI, Spartacists are indeed still writing anit-Pabloist tracts. How should we develop the aricle?--Duncan 07:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)