Lenin vs. Luxemburg

[rosie]

What are some differences between Leninism and Luxemburgism other than Leninism's Vanguard and Luxemburgism's anti-centralized government? Also, what are the sources of the information (I find it difficult to learn without cited sources).

[Nwoye]

Well the most useful texts for you by Luxemburg are going to be:
Organizational Questions of Russian Social Democracy (Leninism or Marxism) (http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1904/questions-rsd/index.htm)
The Russian Revolution (http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/index.htm)

While there were certainly obvious differences between Luxemburg's interpretation of communism and Leninism, it's important to keep in mind while going through these differences that Luxemburg was at the end of the day supportive of Lenin, the Bolsheviks, and the Russian Revolution.

Everything that happens in Russia is comprehensible and represents an inevitable chain of causes and effects, the starting point and end term of which are: the failure of the German proletariat and the occupation of Russia by German imperialism. It would be demanding something superhuman from Lenin and his comrades if we should expect of them that under such circumstances they should conjure forth the finest democracy, the most exemplary dictatorship of the proletariat and a flourishing socialist economy. By their determined revolutionary stand, their exemplary strength in action, and their unbreakable loyalty to international socialism, they have contributed whatever could possibly be contributed under such devilishly hard conditions. The danger begins only when they make a virtue of necessity and want to freeze into a complete theoretical system all the tactics forced upon them by these fatal circumstances, and want to recommend them to the international proletariat as a model of socialist tactics. When they get in there own light in this way, and hide their genuine, unquestionable historical service under the bushel of false steps forced on them by necessity, they render a poor service to international socialism for the sake of which they have fought and suffered; for they want to place in its storehouse as new discoveries all the distortions prescribed in Russia by necessity and compulsion – in the last analysis only by-products of the bankruptcy of international socialism in the present world war.(^^^ From The Russian Revolution)

Don't make the common mistake of adopting her criticisms as an absolute condemnation of Lenin or Bolsheviks as opportunist or bourgeois or whatever, as is often done. Keep in mind the perspective she's working with and her general opinion of the revolution.

[rosie]

Thank you. I could never condemn Lenin (or Trotsky for that matter) for thier efforts. I am in no way a reformist, but my partner is a Leninist/Trotskyist. We have our differences, but (like you said) at the end of the day, we do agree with each other. I have read Reform or Revolution (and a few other essays Rosa had written). While most political writtings are WAAAY over my head, when I take the time to process all of it, hers has seemed more appropriate than other communist economic systems.

[New Tet]

What are some differences between Leninism and Luxemburgism other than Leninism's Vanguard and Luxemburgism's anti-centralized government? Also, what are the sources of the information (I find it difficult to learn without cited sources).

I think Deleonism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/index.htm) is the more appropriate antithesis to Leninism.

[Q]

Often Luxemburg is put up against Lenin. However I think that this is a mistake. Lenin, Luxemburg and others had the tradition of being harsh to the closer comrades in order to make differences clear so that proper discussion could be done. This is the point of of polemics after all. I wouldn't say that Luxemburg was so much anti-centralist as many claim her to be as much as I wouldn't say that Lenin was the centralist zealot that many make of him.

I'm now reading Lenin Rediscovered (http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&dq=kautsky+lih+erfurt&source=gbs_navlinks_s) which puts forward a radical different view on Lenin's well known pamphlet What Is To Be Done? and goes into the matter of explaining the contexts of the era it was written in. I'm mentioning this because this is often put forward as the "founding document of Bolshevism" (quite untrue) against which Luxemburg was strongly opposed.

[Invariance]

I wonder why people think that Luxemburg advocated a 'anti-centralized government.' She wasn't an anarchist by any means. One of the last things she wrote was in support of a centralized state, in the Socialization of Society, which is worth quoting in full:
The proletarian revolution that has now begun can have no other goal and no other result than the realisation of socialism. The working class must above all else strive to get the entire political power of the state into its own hands. Political power, however, is for us socialists only a means. The end for which we must use this power is the fundamental transformation of the entire economic relations.

Currently all wealth – the largest and best estates as well as the mines, works and the factories – belongs to a few Junkers and private capitalists. The great mass of the workers only get from these Junkers and capitalists a meagre wage to live on for hard work. The enrichment of a small number of idlers is the aim of today’s economy.This state of affairs should be remedied. All social wealth, the land with all its natural resources hidden in its bowels and on the surface, and all factories and works must be taken out of the hands of the exploiters and taken into common property of the people.

The first duty of a real workers’ government is to declare by means of a series of decrees the most important means of production to be national property and place them under the control of society. Only then, however, does the real and most difficult task begin: the reconstruction of the economy on a completely new basis.

At the moment production in every enterprise is conducted by individual capitalists on their own initiative. What – and in which way – is to be produced, where, when and how the produced goods are to be sold is determined by the industrialist. The workers do not see to all this, they are just living machines who have to carry out their work.

In a socialist economy this must be completely different! The private employer will disappear. Then no longer production aims towards the enrichment of one individual, but of delivering to the public at large the means of satisfying all its needs. Accordingly the factories, works and the agricultural enterprises must be reorganised according to a new way of looking at things:

Firstly: if production is to have the aim of securing for everyone a dignified life, plentiful food and providing other cultural means of existence, then the productivity of labour must be a great deal higher than it is now. The land must yield a far greater crop, the most advanced technology must be used in the factories, only the most productive coal and ore mines must be exploited, etc. It follows from this that socialisation will above all extend to the large enterprises in industry and agriculture. We do not need and do not want to dispossess the small farmer and craftsman eking out a living with a small plot of land or workshop. In time they will all come to us voluntarily and will recognise the merits of socialism as against private property.

Secondly: in order that everyone in society can enjoy prosperity, everybody must work. Only somebody who performs some useful work for the public at large, whether by hand or brain, can be entitled to receive from society the means for satisfying his needs. A life of leisure like most of the rich exploiters currently lead will come to an end. A general requirement to work for all who are able to do so, from which small children, the aged and sick are exempted, is a matter of course in a socialist economy. The public at large must provide forthwith for those unable to work – not like now with paltry alms but with generous provision, socialised child-raising, enjoyable care for the elderly, public health care for the sick, etc.

Thirdly, in accordance with same outlook, i.e. for the general well-being, one must sensibly manage and be economic with both the means of production and labour. The squandering that currently takes place wherever one goes must stop. Naturally, the entire war and munitions industries must be abolished since a socialist society does not need murder weapons and, instead, the valuable materials and human labour used in them must be employed for useful products.Luxury industries which make all kinds of frippery for the idle rich must also be abolished , along with personal servants. All the human labour tied up here will be found a more worthy and useful occupation.

If we establish in this way a nation of workers, where everybody works for everyone, for the public good and benefit, then work itself must be organised quite differently. Nowadays work in industry, in agriculture and in the office is mostly a torment and a burden for the proletarians. One only goes to work because one has to, because one would not otherwise get the means to live. In a socialist society, where everyone works together for their own well being, the health of the workforce and its enthusiasm for work must be given the greatest consideration at work. Short working hours that do not exceed the normal capability, healthy workrooms, all methods of recuperation and a variety of work must be introduced in order that everyone enjoys doing their part.

All these great reforms, however, call for a corresponding human material. Currently the capitalist, his works foreman or supervisor stands behind the worker with his whip. Hunger drives the proletarian to work in the factory or in the office, for the Junker or the big farmer. The employers take care that time is not frittered away nor material wasted, and that both good and efficient work is delivered.

In a socialist society the industrialist with his whip ceases to exist. The workers are free and equal human beings who work for their own well-being and benefit. That means by themselves, working on their own initiative, not wasting public wealth, and delivering the most reliable and meticulous work. Every socialist concern needs of course its technical managers who know exactly what they are doing and give the directives so that everything runs smoothly and the best division of labour and the highest efficiency is achieved. Now it is a matter of willingly following these orders in full, of maintaining discipline and order, of not causing difficulties or confusion.

In a word: the worker in a socialist economy must show that he can work hard and properly, keep discipline and give his best without the whip of hunger and without the capitalist and his slave-driver behind him. This calls for inner self-discipline, intellectual maturity, moral ardour, a sense of dignity and responsibility, a complete inner rebirth of the proletarian.

One cannot realise socialism with lazy, frivolous, egoistic, thoughtless and indifferent human beings. A socialist society needs human beings from whom each one in his place, is full of passion and enthusiasm for the general well-being, full of self-sacrifice and sympathy for his fellow human beings, full of courage and tenacity in order to dare to attempt the most difficult.

We do not need, however, to wait perhaps a century or a decade until such a species of human beings develop. Right now, in the struggle, in the revolution, the mass of the proletarians learn the necessary idealism and soon acquire the intellectual maturity. We also need courage and endurance, inner clarity and self-sacrifice, to at all be able to lead the revolution to victory. In enlisting capable fighters for the current revolution, we are also creating the future socialist workers which a new order requires as its fundament.

The working class youth is particularly well-qualified for these great tasks. As the future generation they will indeed, quite certainly, already constitute the real foundation of the socialist economy. It is already now its job to demonstrate that it is equal to the great task of being the bearer of the humanity’s future. An entire old world still needs overthrowing and an entirely new one needs constructing. But we will do it young friends, won’t we? We will do it! Just as it says in the song:

We surely lack nothing, my wife, my child,
except all that which through us prospers,
to be as free as the birds:
only the time!

[LeninKobaMao]

To be honest I haven't read that much about Luxemburg but my interpretation of Luxemburg is that ideas were slightly more moderate than Lenin's but Luxemburg claimed she was more "democratic" and constantly condemned Lenin but I think there must be a vanguard because the country needs to be stabilized after the revolution and with Luxemburg's theory everything will fall apart. Just look how fragile Russia was after their revolution.

[New Tet]

I wonder why people think that Luxemburg advocated a 'anti-centralized government.' She wasn't an anarchist by any means. One of the last things she wrote was in support of a centralized state, in the Socialization of Society, which is worth quoting in full:
The proletarian revolution that has now begun can have no other goal and no other result than the realisation of socialism. The working class must above all else strive to get the entire political power of the state into its own hands. Political power, however, is for us socialists only a means. The end for which we must use this power is the fundamental transformation of the entire economic relations.
There is so much profundity in this manifesto that to comment on any of it would require that I comment on every pregnant paragraph.

De Leon has the same effect on me.

Thank you for sharing this awesome document!

[OriginalGumby]

Forgive me for just posting a link quick but this is a three part article on Lenin and the second part specifically takes up the question of Lenin and Luxenburg rejecting the claim that they represented fundamentally different approaches. The rest is good too.
http://www.isreview.org/issues/59/feat-lenin.shtml

[rosie]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

[chegitz guevara]

It is quite remarkable how much the ISO is pushing Lars Lih and other Lenin "revisionists," when the history he has uncovered pretty much undermines the ISO's Leninist political orientation. It is an honest and brave action on their part, and I hope it signals an opening in the ISO to different points of view.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't know, Chegitz. Lars Lih said recently that what he really wants politically is some sort of "Kautsky Revival" on the left. I don't think the ISO would easily drop the Gramsci-Korsch-Lukacs shit against Kautsky.

[blake 3:17]

I don't Lenin and Luxemburg were very far apart. Just reading JP Nettl's bio of Luxemburg. If you can get your hands on it it is amazing!