The question of World War 1 and socialism...

[Cheung Mo]

Do you consider the fault line between the descendants of left-wing organisations who backed their respective national bourgeoisie and aristocrats in World War 1 and organisations who opposed the war and favoured international revolution against these ruling classes to be one that is fundamental to socialism and to whether or not one is able to define themselves as a socialist?

Time and time again, we witness members of these former organisations and those who stand with them (i.e. most of the Socialist International) strive for ideals, exert influence, and implement public policies that run not only against the very fabric of socialist thought and the actions that ought to derive from it, but also represent a flagrant disregard for civil liberties, egalitarianism, logical and scientific though, and a lack of respect for either human life or human decency.

[Comrade Qwatt]

Well the first social-democratic parties in Europe were formed on the advice and help of Marx and Engels themselves, as working-class institutions. Historically speaking then, the 'betrayal' came as you say in WWII, when they urged workers to sign up and kill workers of our other countries 'for the Fatherland'.

[gilhyle]

Interestingly I have been reading Engels recently writing that if France was attacked a French Social Democrat should defend the country (same for Germany) but that it was if a country was defeated that revolutionary defeatism became relevant and if a country was aggresive that war should be opposed.

But to answer your question, no-one who supported their ruling class in WW1 has amounted to anything in revolutionary politics since. The problem is the many fragments of those who opposed their ruling class who have also turned to nothing