Talk:Boris Souvarine

Untitled
Boris Souvarine and HOLODOMOR : is it his denonciation of staline's crime in 1935 ?, please contact frederic.touquet@yahoo.fr

Don't touch, please. --82.121.157.65 22:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is this deleted?
Why is the mention of criticism from Lenin constantly deleted? Anyone who reads the letter can see that it is polemic in nature, criticizes Souvarine's support for Guesde and Kautsky, and accuses him of exaggerating. In what way is this controversial? Does Lenin have to be right and is it anywhere implied that he is right? The last claim for deleting it was that the letter is not actually critical of his stances. Let me quote at random: "Souvarine says he wants to “examine the facts from a Marxist viewpoint”. But from a Marxist viewpoint, such general and abstract definitions as “unpatriotic” are of absolutely no value. The fatherland, the nation are historical categories"; "This leads me to the question of a split, raised also by Souvarine. A split! That is the bogy with which the socialist, leaders are trying to frighten others, and which they themselves fear so much!"; "Souvarine asks. “Its activity would be blighted by sterility, for numerically it would be very weak.” But the day-to-day facts show that, precisely because they are afraid of a split, the “activity” of Pressemane and Longuet in France, Kautsky and Ledebour in Germany, is blighted by sterility!"; "Before concluding, I would like to say a few words in reply to Souvarine’s personal polemics. He asks (the socialists now residing in Switzerland) to moderate their personal criticism of Bernstein, Kautsky, Longuet, etc.... For my part, I must say that I cannot accept that. And I would point out to Souvarine, first of all, that my criticism of the “Centre” is political, not personal. Nothing can restore the mass influence of the Südekums, Plekhanovs, etc.: their authority has been so undermined that everywhere the police have to protect them."

I will give the editor time to respond. If he fails to address these issues, I will call his behavior to the attention of administrators. Dahn 16:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no problem in Dahn's formulation. The letter was written in Jan 1918 (during the war, but after Souverine had shifted his position away from the one Lenin attacked). It is clearly critical. Am I missing something? BobFromBrockley 13:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What is written in the article is : "he initially supported France's participation in the conflict (for which he was later criticized by Vladimir Lenin" - this is not true. Lenin criticizes Souvarine, but not for that. The sentence has to be removed, or changed. --Inbloom2 15:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess it is true that this statement oversimplifies the issue. But isn't that basically what he criticises Souvarine for? Getting the nuance right would be quite complicated, as the dispute is pretty obscure. Souverine's "To Our Friends in Switzerland" was published in late 1916 and puts forward a slightly incoherent revolutionary defencist kind of position, criticising the "friends in Switzerland" (including Lenin) who put forward a dogmatic "revolutionary defeatist" position on the war. The latter were seen by Souvarine as splitting the socialist movement, and as unfairly branding the mainstream Second Intl leaders as chauvinist. Lenin's reply mainly refutes the splitting accusation and clarifies who exactly is being branded as social chauvinist, but underlying that, I think, is an objection to the pro-war thrust of Souvarine's letter. Inbloom2, do you think there is a way of saying this succintly in a way you don't object to, or do you think the whole Lenin reference needs removing? If the latter, isn't it important to note this early crossing of swords with Lenin (and, by implication, that Lenin deemed Souvarine important enough to get into polemics with)?BobFromBrockley 17:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Lenin was unknown at the time... And so was Souvarine. Lenin didn't knew him, and even didn't knew that Souvarine had to fight in WWI from 1914 to 1916 (his brother died at war that year). The sentence has to be changed (and if not, deleted). I agree that the dispute is obscure, that's a problem...

You wrote : "He became associated with Totsky's Left Opposition". It's not true either. For reference, if you can read french, see the book by Jean-Louis Panné or - even better - the work by Charles Jacquier. --Inbloom2 00:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Would it be worth mentioning the Joint Opposition? Le revolution proleterienne (sorry, I know I've spelt that wrong) was the French voice of the Joint Opposition wasn't it? BobFromBrockley 15:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't. Rosmer was close to the Joint Opposition, but mainly as individual. --Inbloom2 11:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boris Souvarine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080309063803/http://www.souvarine.fr/institut.php to http://www.souvarine.fr/institut.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)