Talk:Second International

message: could someone create a link for "...the original Socialist International, ..." as this page is protected? It would make it easier to understand the first paragraph to see that that is a thing, and not an adjective.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.244.192 (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: link request

message: I'm gonna try to make a page for the International Socialist Bureau. Just thought I should say that.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BSI 

message: What is the justification for listing 1916 as the year of dissolution? The obvious date is, of course, 1914, after the fateful vote of the SPD to support war credits. However, international socialist activity continued during the war with the Zimmerwald movement, and the post-war Berne Conference seems to have considered itself an expression of the Second International.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.106.191.180 (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dissolution

message: It has always been my understanding that the present Socialist International is, still, today, 2015, the same Second International that is the subject of this article.
 
Unsigned above is of course quite right that that the SPD's vote for war credits was a rather large gllitch in the organization's history, but, well...
 
The clarity with which the Internationals separate themselves was perhaps shown by Willi Brandt when, as German Chancellor he turned over Marx's early writings to the Russians as a gesture of, uh, Ostpolitik.  It was fashionable at the time to contrast "the young Marx" with the supposedly only later doctrinaire one, and in that spirit Brandt may have thought he was somewhat sending the dull thudd Russians up a wee bit.
The Trotskyite (fourth) International is still alive and well -- as can be seen from the vigour with which the Trots deny this.  I heard murmurings of a Maoist Fifth International in the late seventies, just about the time the Maoists were being shut down in China; I don't know that anything even came of it, but the Naxalites might disagree with me.
 
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Dissolution? 

message: The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. Edited volume (Berne [etc.]: Peter Lang Academic, 2000)
Dreyfus, p. 28
"Several international organizations were established at the same time. The best-known example is the Second International. The date of its foundation, 1889, comes precisely in the middle, chronologically speaking, of the appearance Of Socialist organizations in Europe. Beginning in 1874 in Austria, the establishment of Socialist parties at the national level was essentially completed in 1903 with Serbia. By that time, there were Socialist parties in 17 European countries."
Also might want to add that the Second International was formed in 1889 in Paris on the 100th anniversary of the French Revolution (1789).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.88.181 (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add 

message: This section is not neutral. It is solely the anarchist’s point of view on the question (same reference for each sentence). There was much more than an opposition between libertarian versus authoritarian style, it was the question whether the workers needed a political organisation or only trade-unionist struggle. Stressing the minority rights masks the real issue of the political organisation of the workers. --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This can probably be moved to a "criticisms" section, and edited for neutrality Mirkyton (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exclusion of anarchists 

message: To add to this article:  information about how the Second International dealt with the issue of race. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed I have some other sources in mind for this Mirkyton (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: To add to article

message: The article is currently not written from a neutral point of view on several points. The main section currently includes some specifically leninist critiques, and as pointed out previously the "exclusion of anarchists" section is not neutral. This can probably be solved by rewriting the main section in a more neutral style, and moving all criticisms to a new "criticism" section. This would include leninist, anarchist, and anti-colonial/anti-racist criticisms of the international. Mirkyton (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "criticisms" section