Libya 21: An Urgent Call for Humanitarian Intervention in Sirte and Bani Walid

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
M. Spector M. Spector's picture

dacckon wrote:

Now, if you still don't understand my points, let me sum it up a short manner that you may understand; fuck you.

Yeah. "Fuck me" is what I muttered under my breath when I read the nonsense you wrote.

Regardless of the confused wafflings of Eduard Bernstein and the SPD, the fact is that the First World War was the first historic wedge issue that divided the socialist movement into what we call today "social democrats" and "communists".

[url=]Wikipedia[/url] explains this well:

While the differences had been evident for decades, [b]World War I was to prove the issue that finally divided the revolutionary and reformist wings of the workers' movement.[/b] The socialist movement had been historically antimilitarist and internationalist, and was therefore opposed to being used as "cannon fodder" for the "bourgeois" governments at war....

Nevertheless, within hours of the declaration of war, almost all the socialist parties of the combatant states announced their support for their own countries. The only exceptions were the socialist parties of the Balkans, Russia, and tiny minorities in other countries. To Lenin's surprise, even the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) voted in favor of war credits. The assassination of French socialist Jean Jaurès on July 31, 1914 killed the last hope of peace, by removing one of the few leaders who possessed enough influence on the international socialist movement to prevent it from segmenting itself along national lines and supporting governments of National Unity.

Socialist parties of neutral countries for the most part continued to argue for neutrality rather than for total opposition to the war. [b]On the other hand, during the 1915 Zimmerwald Conference, Lenin organized opposition to the "imperialist war" into a movement that became known as the "Zimmerwald Left" and published the pamphlet Socialism and War, in which he called all socialists who collaborated with their national governments "social-chauvinists", that is, socialists in word but chauvinist in deed.[/b]

The [Second]International was [b]dividing into a revolutionary left and a reformist right,[/b] with a center group wavering between those poles. Lenin condemned much of the center as social-pacifists for several reasons, but partly because while they opposed the war they refused to break party discipline and voted for war credits. The term "social-pacifist" was aimed in particular at Ramsay MacDonald, leader of the Independent Labour Party in Britain, who opposed the war on grounds of pacifism but did not actively resist it.

[b]Discredited by its passivity towards world events, the Second International dissolved in the middle of the war in 1916....[/b]


Meanwhile, the success of the Russian Revolution in 1917 led to the foundation of the Third (Communist)International. 

The Second International was revived in the 1920's and replaced by the Socialist International after the second world war. The "social-pacifist" and "social-chauvinist" parties of the Second International were the ancestors of the modern social democratic parties of the Socialist International. And they're still cheerleading for wars in places like Korea and Libya.


dacckon wrote:

Now, if you still don't understand my points, let me sum it up a short manner that you may understand; fuck you.

Dacckon, please, there are better uses for the word "fuck" (like "this is fucked up" or "we're so fucked", etc.).  Don't use it as a term of personal abuse on babble.


ETA: closing for length.


Topic locked