Template talk:Political internationals

ICOR is not an international

Explicitly International Coordination of Revolutionary Parties and Organizations (ICOR) does not consider itself an "International". The reason is, ICOR does not want to repeat errors such as bureaucratic deviations from democratic centralism made by defunct Communist International in its practice but learn from them for recent and coming struggles. At the recent state of its development ICOR considers itself an instrument for organizing international mutual support in coordinating workers' and peoples' progressive struggles and party building of “autonomous, independent and self-reliant” revolutionary organizations. It does not claim to follow the organizational principle of democratic centralism (yet), which would be the principal characteristic of an international following marxist-leninist standards. So I think either the ICOR link should be removed from the template and the template from the article or the template's title should be changed into something adequate like "international political associations" or something. --Partisan1917 13:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm convinced. I'll remove it.--Duncan (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Libertarian organizations should be categorized consistently

Problem: Currently, Liberty International is listed under "Liberal" and "International Alliance of Libertarian Parties" is listed under "Other". Both are Libertarian organizations, so splitting them up doesn't make sense.

Possible resolutions:
1. List them both under "Liberal"
2. List them both under "Other"
3. Create a new category "Libertarian" for both of them

My opinion:
Although I think any of the 3 are good enough, number 3, create a new category "Libertarian" for both of them, seems the cleanest and most straightforward to me

My justification:
Although Libertarians lay claim to "Classical Liberalism" as part of their philosophical foundation, "Liberal" at the international level no longer overlaps much with what Libertarians call "Classical Liberalism". Further, Neither of these two international Libertarian organization cooperates or dialogues with Liberal International, the gold standard of what "Liberal" means in the international setting since the 1940s.

Counterpoints:
1. My recommendation, and resolution 2, leaves Liberal International as the only party under the Liberal category. This may make it seem Liberal does not merit its own category any longer, rather than communicate how monolithic Liberalism has become in the last century through the budding off of progressives and other newer political groupings.

2. Nit picking between "Liberal" and "Libertarian" may not be the level of specificity this Template is looking for, given that a dozen international organizations have been lumped under the Socialist category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salocin.nosjack (talk • contribs) 20:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)