Die Neue Zeit
12th December 2010, 06:26
The "reformists" in the Second International were not one homogenous group. There were the right-syndicalists who'd sell their proverbial mothers for a morsel, but there were also the "pacifist" reform socialists. I bring this up because some Trotskyist in another thread didn't understand the intricacies of a revolutionary period and a non-revolutionary period:
I'll tell you what is ridiculous, turning Engels' position on the Franco-Prussian War into a religious precedent that justifies support for the US and/or Chinese bourgeoisie in the next imperialist war. If you're against turning a war into a revolution, if you retreat before the onslaught of bourgeois militarism, then you are no Leninist.
"Even" Die Linke? You serious? Actual revolutionaries oppose all imperialist alliances.
It is one thing to be opposed to military adventurism and premature seizure of political power by the proletariat. It is another to use theory for the sole purpose of arguing why reformism, class treason and collaboration with imperialism are justifiable 99% of the time. I wouldn't be surprised if when the next revolutionary overturn happens, you follow your idol Kautsky and denounce it because the revolution isn't happening when and how you want it to.
Premature seizure of political power also involves a low level of institutional worker-class organization. Go check out my History thread on May 1968 in France and my comments on the PCF: wrong orientation and program, correct actions.
Absolutely surreal. The PCF in 1968 did "correct actions?" What actions? Saying "Fucking students go back to class!" and backing away from the seizure of power in favor of an attempt to grab seats in government during an actual revolutionary situation, when factory workers were taking bosses hostage and hoisting the red flag, when De Gaulle had fled the country - at the closest moment to a socialist revolution in Europe since the war? The PCF in '68 is a great example of how a "revolutionary" party can betray a revolution using the excuse that it isn't the right time.
Somewhere within the "pacifist" reform socialist tradition was some cursory knowledge of a revolutionary period. With this, though, there was the "use [of] theory for the sole purpose of arguing why reformism, class treason and collaboration with imperialism are justifiable 99% of the time." This is not to be confused with the position of the Marxist center.
Back to this cursory knowledge, this primarily meant reform coalitions, ministerialism, Millerandism, Jaures-ism, and all the rave of entering into bourgeois cabinets (but more needs to be said about coalitionism at the local and regional levels, too). Other reactionary tactics were also promoted. On few tactical aspects, though, these reformists were not afraid to do things like calling for civil disobedience, unlike the right-syndicalists. They were also not afraid to openly oppose inter-imperialist war by means of "peace without annexations or indemnifications" (though not necessarily colonizing wars for "civilizing").
The cursory knowledge really kicked in during the revolutionary period ("1% of the time"), because all of a sudden they really didn't like anything to do with inter-imperialist war. The rave of entering into bourgeois cabinets was gone, and the likes of Jean Jaures himself paid with their own lives for opposing the war. Again, these reformists, however awful their program was, were not afraid of civil disobedience.
I'll tell you what is ridiculous, turning Engels' position on the Franco-Prussian War into a religious precedent that justifies support for the US and/or Chinese bourgeoisie in the next imperialist war. If you're against turning a war into a revolution, if you retreat before the onslaught of bourgeois militarism, then you are no Leninist.
"Even" Die Linke? You serious? Actual revolutionaries oppose all imperialist alliances.
It is one thing to be opposed to military adventurism and premature seizure of political power by the proletariat. It is another to use theory for the sole purpose of arguing why reformism, class treason and collaboration with imperialism are justifiable 99% of the time. I wouldn't be surprised if when the next revolutionary overturn happens, you follow your idol Kautsky and denounce it because the revolution isn't happening when and how you want it to.
Premature seizure of political power also involves a low level of institutional worker-class organization. Go check out my History thread on May 1968 in France and my comments on the PCF: wrong orientation and program, correct actions.
Absolutely surreal. The PCF in 1968 did "correct actions?" What actions? Saying "Fucking students go back to class!" and backing away from the seizure of power in favor of an attempt to grab seats in government during an actual revolutionary situation, when factory workers were taking bosses hostage and hoisting the red flag, when De Gaulle had fled the country - at the closest moment to a socialist revolution in Europe since the war? The PCF in '68 is a great example of how a "revolutionary" party can betray a revolution using the excuse that it isn't the right time.
Somewhere within the "pacifist" reform socialist tradition was some cursory knowledge of a revolutionary period. With this, though, there was the "use [of] theory for the sole purpose of arguing why reformism, class treason and collaboration with imperialism are justifiable 99% of the time." This is not to be confused with the position of the Marxist center.
Back to this cursory knowledge, this primarily meant reform coalitions, ministerialism, Millerandism, Jaures-ism, and all the rave of entering into bourgeois cabinets (but more needs to be said about coalitionism at the local and regional levels, too). Other reactionary tactics were also promoted. On few tactical aspects, though, these reformists were not afraid to do things like calling for civil disobedience, unlike the right-syndicalists. They were also not afraid to openly oppose inter-imperialist war by means of "peace without annexations or indemnifications" (though not necessarily colonizing wars for "civilizing").
The cursory knowledge really kicked in during the revolutionary period ("1% of the time"), because all of a sudden they really didn't like anything to do with inter-imperialist war. The rave of entering into bourgeois cabinets was gone, and the likes of Jean Jaures himself paid with their own lives for opposing the war. Again, these reformists, however awful their program was, were not afraid of civil disobedience.