For every member of parliament, every editor, every secretary of a labour union, every journalist and public leader can always gather the information kept secret by the government and the financiers that reveals the truth about the real basis of imperialist deals. A socialist’s failure to fulfil this duty is a betrayal of socialism. There need be no doubt that no government will allow, especially now, free publication of exposures of its real policy, its treaties, financial deals, etc. That is no reason to renounce such exposures. Rather it is a reason to renounce servile submission to the censorship and publish the facts freely, i.e., uncensored, illegally.
For the Socialist of another country cannot expose the government and bourgeoisie of a country at war with “his own” nation, and not only because he does not know that country’s language, history, specific features, etc., but also because such exposure is part of imperialist intrigue, and not an internationalist duty.
He is not an internationalist who vows and swears by internationalism. Only he is an internationalist who in a really internationalist way combats his own bourgeoisie, his own social-chauvinists, his own Kautskyites.
(b) In every country the Socialist must above all emphasise in all his propaganda the need to distrust not only every political phrase of his own government, but also every political phrase of his own social-chauvinists, who in reality serve that government.
He fails this test. He fails his duty. He is an imperialist social fascist because he fixated on the enemies of his nation instead of revolutionary defeatism of his own nation. This is the litmus test for being “in the fold”. He can drop his chauvinism and correct his behavior, or he can continue being a social fascist Kautskyite.
Thank you for helping elucidate this concept for me. I suppose the disagreement I had was just labeling anyone as such, in my view people are not their actions, while people have patterns of action and often can't break from that pattern, I don't believe anyone truly is anything and can change depending on their conditions, so it was more of a reaction to the phrasing. But arguing semantics is a waste of time, so I see now your original comment was a fine descriptor, I don't know much about Robinson though tbh. A nice thing about hexbear is that you can be more blunt with language, and generally around here people will know what you are getting at.
I have to perfectly honest, once one steps into the realm of being a political figure one loses all individual sympathy or human qualities. One willingly becomes a symbol representing a certain type of politics and certain interests, based on one’s statements and actions and associates. To clearly define and label these political figures into their historical tendencies is not only permissible, it’s essential to navigating and understanding politics. “Campism” is often thrown as an insult at Marxists who understand history and see reoccurring patterns and types. The reason we study old revolutions and read Lenin is to be able to recognize the new Lenin when we see them, and the reason we learn about Kautsky and his ilk is to recognize them when they appear.
I recognize a Kautskyite opportunist and I say so. He can change if he doesn’t want to be what he is, but he should be labeled clearly
He fails this test. He fails his duty. He is an imperialist social fascist because he fixated on the enemies of his nation instead of revolutionary defeatism of his own nation. This is the litmus test for being “in the fold”. He can drop his chauvinism and correct his behavior, or he can continue being a social fascist Kautskyite.
Thank you for helping elucidate this concept for me. I suppose the disagreement I had was just labeling anyone as such, in my view people are not their actions, while people have patterns of action and often can't break from that pattern, I don't believe anyone truly is anything and can change depending on their conditions, so it was more of a reaction to the phrasing. But arguing semantics is a waste of time, so I see now your original comment was a fine descriptor, I don't know much about Robinson though tbh. A nice thing about hexbear is that you can be more blunt with language, and generally around here people will know what you are getting at.
I have to perfectly honest, once one steps into the realm of being a political figure one loses all individual sympathy or human qualities. One willingly becomes a symbol representing a certain type of politics and certain interests, based on one’s statements and actions and associates. To clearly define and label these political figures into their historical tendencies is not only permissible, it’s essential to navigating and understanding politics. “Campism” is often thrown as an insult at Marxists who understand history and see reoccurring patterns and types. The reason we study old revolutions and read Lenin is to be able to recognize the new Lenin when we see them, and the reason we learn about Kautsky and his ilk is to recognize them when they appear.
I recognize a Kautskyite opportunist and I say so. He can change if he doesn’t want to be what he is, but he should be labeled clearly