Talk:Socialist Action (Australia)

The Socialists

There was briefly an unrelated group called "The Socialists" in Melbourne, now defunct. It was set up by people including former members of Socialist Party after they had left. A contributor is adding a history of that group onto this page, and in the edit comments has said there was a vote somewhere to merge "The Socialists" page with the Socialist Party page. This is not normal practice - these are two unrelated organisations and this essentially ends up being unrelated clutter. The Democratic Labor Party page has not been merged with the Labor Party page, and the Liberal Party page does not include a history of the Australian Conservatives. Whether or not the page for The Socialists exists, it isn't normal for an encyclopaedia article about a political group to follow the subsequent careers of people who used to be in the group - it's off-topic. 203.26.125.101 (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2017 neutrality tag

Hi all, I removed the neutrality tag from August 2017 as it has been two months and there has been no indication of what the issue is. In line with Wikipedia's guidelines on when to remove a neutrality tag:

2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.

3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant. --2001:8000:1432:F600:3D45:2846:29CD:7922 (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Policies -> Attitude toward BDS campaign

user 120.151.164.35: i see you're not familiar with wikipedia's NPOV policy. also deleting previous discussion is not particularly useful. not really the point of these pages. they are here to have out the arguments. saying the sp is for the two-state solution over the one state is not controversial within itself. if the sp believes the one state solution is a 'capitalist' solution and the two state is a 'socialist' one then you need to state why the sp has this position. as i'm sure you know many socialists argue the opposite which is why you can't just claim it as heresy in the article. Marxwasright (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly 'Marxwasright' has not read the article which is linked to the sentence in question. Either that or they are out of their depth with this political question. There is a major difference between the Clinton/Rice two state solution, which is capitalist, and the SOCIALIST two state solution which the SP puts forward. The two things are totally at odds with each other therefore it is dishonest and wrong to link to the 'two state (capitalist) solution' Wikipedia link. The wording I have used is much more accurate and I request that you accept the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.164.35 (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

ok what i get from your defensive position is that you resent the sp's two state solution being associated with what the term 'two state solution' means for most people. what you need to remember is that writing on wikipedia is not the same as writing for the socialist party's publications. you have to assume that most people reading any given article have little or no prior knowledge of the debates between the numerous socialist tendencies, you have to (whether you agree with it or not) accept that all these different socialist tendencies differ on particular political questions, therefore cannot merely assume that the sp's position (that their particular two state solution) is THE socialist solution. with that in mind, this section of the article needs to be expanded and written about from a NPOV, not the sp's point of view. if there is a 'major difference between the Clinton/Rice two state solution' and the sp's position - explain it in the article. saying the traditional two state solution is 'capitalist' and the sp's two state solution is 'socialist' explains nothing. further more, if the one state solution is also 'capitalist', explain why. no one is stopping you. Marxwasright (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I state again that it is wrong to suggest that the Socialist Party supports the 'two state solution' you have linked to. The article that you have referenced at [8] clearly explains that SP supports a socialist solution. The link to the the 'two state solution' is something entirely different and once again it is dishonest to infer that this is what SP supports. This has nothing to do with people not knowing the history of debates between left groups it has to do with what SP supports and the link in question. As the article at [8] says clearly ..."capitalism is completely unable to provide acceptable living standards for a vast layer of ordinary people. The necessity is therefore for a socialist Israel, and a socialist Palestine, and for capitalism to be swept away in all the poverty-stricken countries of the region to create a socialist confederation in the Middle East. The democratic rights of minorities within all states must be defended, and the right of return of refugees also." This position is clearly different to the position outlined in the 'two state soltuion' link you have used. In a nutshell the sentence you use "Similarly, they support a two-state solution in the conflict as opposed to a one-state solution." is just plain wrong. The main thrust of the SP position is that they think capitalism is incapable of resolving the national question in the Middle East. This is totally at odds with the majority of the Liberal Left. The sentence I have proposed is much more accurate and does not fall fowl of the Wikipedia NPOV policy. Once again I ask you you to stop with the pettiness and to stop making dishonest changes to the page. The sentence "Similarly, they support a socialist solution in the conflict as opposed to a capitalist one-state solution which is supported by the majority of the Liberal Left.' is the most precise way to describ what SP stand for from a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.164.35 (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

if i wanted to be "petty" and sectarian as you are, i could just as easily say something like "the sp supports a capitalist two-state solution as opposed to the socialist one state solution" but what would be the point of that? you're still ignoring my arguments. if you can find a way to summarize what source [8] says then please be my guest. as it stands, your current summary is just a point of view. "socialist solution" and "capitalist solution" explains nothing. the majority of the liberal left supporting the one state over the two state solution is also debatable. Marxwasright (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Marxwasright, it doesn't look like you made any arguments to ignore. The article was incorrectly linked to a political position inconsistent with Socialist Party. This was factually innaccurate, and a violation of NPOV. The situation has been corrected, the edit was justified. Let it go, mate. You can write an article for whatever sectarian little faction you belong to "Marxwasright"; Wikipedia isn't the place for it. 130.194.160.4 (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)