The Myth of Luxemburgism

[Zanthorus]

Alright, I've seen people mention this supposed spook of a tendency, 'Luxemburgism', at least four times over the past couple of days on Revleft. I think it's time to lay this to rest. The organisations which are referred to as 'Luxemburgist' have nothing to do with the actual ideas of Rosa Luxemburg. These organisations reject the Russian revolution, Luxemburg supported it as a breath of fresh air compared to the opportunism and vaccillation of the German socialist movement. Those organisations reject centralism and vanguardism, whereas Luxemburg criticised Lenin for being an inconsistent centralist on the national question, and believed in the party as the vanguard of the proletariat, organised in a centralised fashion. Her difference with Lenin was on the basis of purely Russian conditions, and specifically on the question of opportunism. Lenin saw opportunism in Russia as adaption to Tsarist society, whereas Luxemburg saw opportunism as the subordination of the proletariat to a quasi-Robespeierrean bourgeois radical. On this basis, Luxemburg disagreed with Lenin's emphasis on centralism in Russia. On the other hand she advocated an even greater degree of centralisation for the German Social-Democratic Party in order to combat opportunist and petit-bourgeois elements. Further, there is no evidence in fact that Luxemburg had ever actually read Lenin's One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward, which anyone could see for themselves by reading Lenin's reply (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1904/sep/15a.htm) to OQotRSD. I have heard the suggestion, which is more than likely, that Luxemburg got her information about Lenin's pamphlet from critiques of it published in the newspapers of the German Social-Democratic Party, since at the time the Mensheviks were in vogue with the SDP. Whatever the reason, Luxemburg later attacked Plekhanov in 1907 for suggesting that Lenin was some kind of Robespierre or Blanqui type figure, saying that there was absolutely no danger of Blanquism, any elements which may have been there in 1902 had been swept away by time itself. This was a clear turnaround on her part, and I am not aware of her going back on this position at any time after 1907. The legacy of Rosa Luxemburg is upheld, not by the so-called 'Luxemburgists', but by the descendants of the Italian left who followed the tendency around Onorato Damen in rejecting national liberation struggles while retaining an all-round commitment to Leninism and the revolutionary party.

[Amphictyonis]

Quite simply the difference is found in her idea of democracy. In reality I'm not a follower of any dead or alive person- I just can't bring myself to be an anarchist because I don't think abolishing the state will lead to the immediate expropriation of capital. I think a state period is necessary but it should be as democratic as humanly possible. Simple explanation.

[black magick hustla]

To be honest, I think some of the more anarchist oriented types confuse the old german left emphasis on spontaneity and the impossibility of forcing the revolution down peoples´throats to anarchism. It was never about authoritarianism or democracy, but it was against voluntarism, the myth that a few hardheaded ideologues could bring about revolutionary change. Voluntarism is endemic in the anarchist movement too, so clearly they did not get it.

[devoration1]

So you're talking about 'Communist Democracy (Luxemburgist)' and the 'International Luxemburgist Network'?

[Widerstand]

voluntarism, the myth that a few hardheaded ideologues could bring about revolutionary change

I don't get this. What exactly is meant by 'voluntarism' in this context? That some people will 'start revolutionizing' and the rest of the public will magically follow?

[Apoi_Viitor]

Can someone explain to me the basics of Rosa's thought? From what I understand, the basics are: revolution should be brought forth by the working class (and led by the working class), the necessity of proletarian democracy, revolution as opposed to reformation, and emphasizing the necessity of an international revolution.

[Zanthorus]

I don't get this. What exactly is meant by 'voluntarism' in this context? That some people will 'start revolutionizing' and the rest of the public will magically follow?

From what I gathered, voluntarism generally refers to an emphasis on the subjective will of revolutionary militants in bringing about social change, as opposed to the objective development of social contradictions and class antagonisms.


Can someone explain to me the basics of Rosa's thought? From what I understand, the basics are: revolution should be brought forth by the working class (and led by the working class), the necessity of proletarian democracy, revolution as opposed to reformation, and emphasizing the necessity of an international revolution.

Yes, but I don't think any of this is particularly original. It's not really any different from what you could find flogged by your average Trotskyist group. The two things that make Rosa stand out are her position on the national question (Against the right of nations to self-determination) and on the mass strike (In favour).

[Tavarisch_Mike]

What i always liked about here is the focus on the masses, the collectiveness, tha she shares with Mao.

[Devrim]

What i always liked about here is the focus on the masses, the collectiveness, tha she shares with Mao.

Mike, I don't think that Luxembourg shares anything with Mao. Luxembourg talked about the self activity of the working class, whereas Mao talked about the peasantry acting through the party.

Devrim

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Mike, I don't think that Luxembourg shares anything with Mao. Luxembourg talked about the self activity of the working class, whereas Mao talked about the peasantry acting through the party.

Devrim

I will admit that i made a very rough conection.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Some of the basics:

- Against national liberation movements.
- Radical democracy after the revolution in which workers hold general elections. More Marxist approach than Lenin's vanguard in charge.
- anti-authoritarian (it would lead to sectarianism, which leads to totalitarianism...which it did).
- Dialectic of spontaneity and organization. She did not regard organisation as a product of scientific-theoretic insight to historical imperatives, but as a product of the working classes' struggles

[Bilan]

- anti-authoritarian (it would lead to sectarianism, which leads to totalitarianism...which it did).

Where does Luxemburg talk about the pros and cons of "authoritarianism"?

[Ocean Seal]

Why would the Luxemburgist line of thought be against national liberation? Shouldn't the fall of capitalism be supported in any form as it brings down capital piece by piece ensuring an international socialist revolution?

[Bilan]

Why would the Luxemburgist line of thought be against national liberation? Shouldn't the fall of capitalism be supported in any form as it brings down capital piece by piece ensuring an international socialist revolution?

Were that the case, then yes. However, it is not, and national liberation does not 'bring down capital piece by piece'.
To put it simply, national liberation merely substitutes one bourgeois for another, and it barely does that.

[Ocean Seal]

Were that the case, then yes. However, it is not, and national liberation does not 'bring down capital piece by piece'.
To put it simply, national liberation merely substitutes one bourgeois for another, and it barely does that.
Interesting point, but what does Luxemburg define as National Liberation.
For example where would the below movements fall under the definition of National Liberation.
The Sandanistas
Cuba July the 26th movement
Russian Revolution
Venezuela
Vietnam
Also what if national liberation is based on a socialist platform?
Lastly, doesn't national liberation of any kind weaken capitalism because it causes underdeveloped countries to industrialize and the raw goods needed by the capitalist can no longer be extracted because they can be refined in the nation of origin.

These are more questions than an actual argument. I'm not very well versed on the subject of the international mechanics of capitalism.

[Bilan]

Rosa Luxemburg: The National Question (1909)
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/index.htm)

[Q]

From what I gathered, voluntarism generally refers to an emphasis on the subjective will of revolutionary militants in bringing about social change, as opposed to the objective development of social contradictions and class antagonisms.
Now I can understand Devrim's tirades against DNZ more (not that I agree).


Yes, but I don't think any of this is particularly original. It's not really any different from what you could find flogged by your average Trotskyist group. The two things that make Rosa stand out are her position on the national question (Against the right of nations to self-determination) and on the mass strike (In favour).
One of the critiques against Trotskyism is exactly that it also strives to the general strike (and through it, to revolution). So that just leaves the natioal question I guess, no?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I suppose the Trotskyist SEP/ICFI would be "Luxemburgist," then...

[Widerstand]

Now I can understand Devrim's tirades against DNZ more (not that I agree).

They are justified.

Without exception.

(This is more based on disagreement with DNZ than agreement with Devrim, really).


One of the critiques against Trotskyism is exactly that it also strives to the general strike (and through it, to revolution). So that just leaves the natioal question I guess, no?

Don't Trots also support parliamentary participation and all sorts of entryist tactics which Left Comms (and Luxemburgists?) don't?

[Tower of Bebel]

I'd like to add some substance to what Devrim wrote. What made Rosa Luxemburg stand out was her correct analysis of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Almost uniquely (!) she appears to hold views consistently in line with Marx-Engels. Her Russian Revolution, although it remained unfinished and was written while she was confined to prison, offers some penetrating cricisms of early Bolshevism.

At the time the Bolsheviks and right-wing social democrats started to confuse dictatorship with violence and substituted the party for the proletariat. The social democrats therefor ignored the dictatorship while the Bolsheviks got rid of democracy. Luxemburg however was clear on the question and fought for what she believed was a dictatorship through the active participation of the masses.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Where does Luxemburg talk about the pros and cons of "authoritarianism"?

She doesn't have a book dedicated to the topic or anything, but she criticized Lenin and the Bolshevik's authoritarianism, and how she worried it would result in a loss of internal democracy, sectarianism and irrelevancy -- as well as a dictatorship after the revolution.

See: Leninism or Marxism? by Rosa Luxemburg.

[graymouser]

See: Leninism or Marxism? by Rosa Luxemburg.
The Organizational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy was a pamphlet that warned against building too strong a role for the intelligentsia into the Russian party. It was not against democratic centralism in a mass workers' movement, which the Russian social democracy later became, but against centralization in the hands of the intellectuals who would become "bourgeois radicals." It was a distortion of reality when the pamphlet, which is not of the greatest importance in Luxemburg's writing, was reprinted with the title Leninism or Marxism - Luxemburg had never even conceived of Leninism as such at the time it was written. And your analysis is basically simple assertion of the opposite of Zanthorus's critique above.

[Amphictyonis]

I'll take part in this discussion as soon as I have some time in between work today and drinking tonight :) Thus far I don't see the "the myth of Luxemburgism" put to rest. As if.....

[Hit The North]

The last thing Marxism needs is another ism to divide it. Instead of erecting these doctrinaire isms, we should focus on what unites Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, etc. as Marxists and focus on their unique contributions to our history and the abiding relevance of the best parts of their insights to our current practice.

I guess this thread is attempting to do that in a way, but it also seems to be trying to evoke some embodiment of a pure and metaphysically true Marxist theory, some unadulterated line, which cannot exist in the real life of the class struggle.

[Zanthorus]

She doesn't have a book dedicated to the topic or anything, but she criticized Lenin and the Bolshevik's authoritarianism, and how she worried it would result in a loss of internal democracy, sectarianism and irrelevancy -- as well as a dictatorship after the revolution.

Except, as I already noted, it's highly unlikely that Luxemburg had ever read Lenin's One Step Forward, Two Steps Back. To take a concrete example, Luxemburg compares Lenin's supposedly ultra-centralist model of leadership (Which, by the way, you will note, she never gives any textual evidence for!), with the self-activity of workers involved in a strike in Rostov on Don. Want to guess where Luxemburg got her information about the workers' in the strike from? It was from articles written by Lenin himself in Iskra! I have already linked to Lenin's reply to Luxemburg's articles, which I suggest you might want to read instead of simply taking Luxemburg's word on everything. You will note that Lenin never once tries to defend the positions Luxemburg ascribes to him, he flat denies ever having held them and tries to set the record straight:


Comrade Rosa Luxemburg’s article in Nos. 42 and 43 of the Neue Zeit is a criticism of my Russian book on the crisis in our Party.[1] I cannot but thank our German comrades for their attention to our Party literature and their attempts to acquaint German Social-Democrats with it, but I must point out that Rosa Luxemburg’s Neue Zeit article does not acquaint the reader with my book, but with something else. This may be seen from the following instances. Comrade Luxemburg says, for example, that my book is a clear and detailed expression of the point of view of “intransigent centralism”. Comrade Luxemburg thus supposes that I defend one system of organisation against another. But actually that is not so... Rosa Luxemburg further says that “according to his [Lenin’s] conception, the Central Committee has the right to organise all the local Party committees”. Actually that is not so... Comrade Luxemburg says that in my view “the Central Committee is the only active nucleus of the Party”. Actually that is not so... Comrade Rosa Luxemburg says that there are no two opinions among the Russian Social-Democrats as to the need for a united party, and that the whole controversy is over the degree of centralisation. Actually that is not so... Comrade Luxemburg fathers on me the idea that all the conditions already exist in Russia for forming a large and extremely centralised workers’ party. Again an error of fact... Comrade Luxemburg declares that I glorify the educational influence of the factory. That is not so.http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1904/sep/15a.htm

Again, it is highly likely that Luxemburg got all her information about Lenin's book from critiques of it written by the Mensheviks, since at that time the Mensheviks were in vogue with the SPD. Again, her critique of 'centralism' is applied only to Russia. She thinks that the main danger of opportunism here comes from the threat of a bourgeois radical highjacking the proletariat, whereas Lenin thought that the main danger was from adaptation to Tsarist society. However, for the German labour movement and western labour movements in general, she advocates a greater degree of organisational centralism:


The Social Democracy must enclose the tumult of the nonproletarian protestants against existing society within bounds of the revolutionary action of the proletariat. It must assimilate the elements that come to it.

This is only possible if the Social Democracy already contains a strong, politically educated proletarian nucleus class conscious enough to be able, as up to now in Germany, to pull along in its tow the declassed and petty bourgeois elements that join the party. In that case, greater strictness in the application of the principle of centralization and more severe discipline, specifically formulated in party bylaws, may be an effective safeguard against the opportunist danger. That is how the revolutionary socialist movement in France defended itself against the Jauresist confusion. A modification of the constitution at the German Social Democracy in that direction would be a very timely measure.

Finally, even if Luxemburg's 'critique' was attacking anything other than a phantom, events did not go at all like she thought they would. She thought the upcoming revolution Russia would be a bourgeois revolution, that was false, and Luxemburg duely recognised it as false after 1905. She repudiated any allogations of Blanquism against Lenin in 1907, saying that the danger of Blanquism in Russia was nil, and time had corrected any dangers that might have been latent at the beggining.

[Amphictyonis]

The last thing Marxism needs is another ism to divide it. Instead of erecting these doctrinaire isms, we should focus on what unites Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, etc. as Marxists and focus on their unique contributions to our history and the abiding relevance of the best parts of their insights to our current practice.

I guess this thread is attempting to do that in a way, but it also seems to be trying to evoke some embodiment of a pure and metaphysically true Marxist theory, some unadulterated line, which cannot exist in the real life of the class struggle.

In my mind she was a classical Marxist critical of the way Marx was being interpreted (revised) by various Russians. We're no longer in the conditions of 1917 Russia so to stick to Lenin's revision of Marx is silly. I don't consider myself a "Luxemburgist" outside of a RevLeft tenancy thing. I'm a classical Marxist ( smart enough to apply classical Marxism to today's conditions) who puts more weight on her point of view over Lenin and Trotsky. We have, where I live, an advanced capitalist system- what Marx always saw as necessary for socialism. Russia was a backwards nation trying to make the jump straight to socialism without first developing the means of production under capitalism. Most of the post Marx Russian theorists are, well, not that applicable in the US. This may piss a few people off....so be it. And I agree with you concerning the "isms" as did Marx. We need a united working class, this means anarchists as well.

[ZeroNowhere]

Russia was a backwards nation trying to make the jump straight to socialism without first developing the means of production under capitalism.I think that you'll find that Lenin was quite adamant about consummating the bourgeois revolution and developing capitalism before socialism could be accomplished.

[Amphictyonis]

I think that you'll find that Lenin was quite adamant about consummating the bourgeois revolution and developing capitalism before socialism could be accomplished.

Ya well, Russia never went communist or socialist. Lenin was in the right as far as trying to develop Russia but "Leninism" shouldn't be something we in advanced capitalist societies advocate. In our modern world Marx is more important than some long dead revolutionary who was living under different conditions and thus had to use Marx/Engels works in different ways (in action). I don't put a huge amount of importance on Luxembourg other than the fact Germany was more advanced than Russia so she had a viewpoint more in line with what modern western Marxists hold. Germany, or the German Empire, had an advanced (for it's time) industrial economy. at this point I'm not sure I want to take part in some inter-sectarian pointless debate concerning the relevance of dead revolutionaries in today's time. What's important is people read and understand Marx while having the ability to apply him to our modern circumstances. Capitalism is fundamentally the same but the world it is a changing. What I see as important, rather than personalities or some future game plan for overthrowing capitalism is a unified mass movement of workers able to push for real democracy. Pretty simple.

Oh yea,Lenin also mistakenly thought capitalism (as Marx said was necessary before a new stage of development would arise) had exhausted it's global productive capacity. It didn't as we have seen and socialism has yet to have it's day as a result of capitalism's exponential growth.

[Zanthorus]

We have, where I live, an advanced capitalist system- what Marx always saw as necessary for socialism.

Actually, there is one concrete case where Marx did say that a country without capitalist relations of production could use a particular social form, greatly modified to the conditions of advanced industry, to jump over the capitalist phase of development and establish socialism. And that concrete case was none other than Russia itself.

Here is Engels in his 1874 work On Social Relations in Russia:


It is clear that communal ownership in Russia is long past its period of florescence and, to all appearances, is moving towards its disintegration. Nevertheless, the possibility undeniably exists of raising this form of society to a higher one... without it being necessary for the Russian peasants to go through the intermediate stage of bourgeois small holdings. This, however, can only happen if, before the complete break-up of communal ownership, a proletarian revolution is successfully carried out in Western Europe, creating for the Russian peasant the preconditions requisite for such a transition, particularly the material things he needs, if only to carry through the revolution, necessarily connected therewith, of his whole agricultural system.

Essentially, Marx and Engels thought that the collectivist social form of the Russian village commune's (Obschina), could be adapted to the conditions of a higher collectivist social form (Modern socialism), if a proletarian revolution occurs in Western Europe, allowing Russia to acquire the material productive forces necessary for transition to socialism without having to surrender themselves to the laws of the capitalist marketplace.

Again in the 1882 preface to the Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto we find:


The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?

The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.

So it is clear that in this specific case, the case of Russia no less, Marx does not think that advanced capitalism needs to develop before socialism can be achieved in a particular country, and the emphasis instead is on the state of the international system and the international preconditions which might allow for such a peculiar national development.


Ya well, Russia never went communist or socialist.

Yup, that's because the international revolution never came. The single outpost of the world revolution remained just that - a single outpost in the sea of the capitalist world-market.


Oh yea,Lenin also mistakenly thought capitalism (as Marx said was necessary before a new stage of development would arise) had exhausted it's global productive capacity.

Marx never said that capitalism would have to exhaust it's productive capacity for revolution to occur, what he said was that the existing social relations of production would become a 'fetter', on future development of the forces of production. This is highly ambiguous and could mean any number of things (And was probably intended to mean a number of things), although saying that capitalism would have to become completely incapable of further development of the productive forces is almost certainly not one of them.


It didn't as we have seen and socialism has yet to have it's day as a result of capitalism's exponential growth.

Socialism has yet to see it's day because the Official Communist and Social-Democratic parties (Backed up 'critically' by a myriad of Trotskyist and leftist sects) constantly act as the labour lieutenants of capital, strangling the proletariat's capacity to act as a class-for-itself, and subjecting the interests of the working-class to the various 'progressive', 'national' and 'democratic' factions of the bourgeoisie.

[Tower of Bebel]

Zanthorus, could you explain briefly what you mean by writing that "she thought the upcoming revolution Russia would be a bourgeois revolution, that was false, and Luxemburg duely recognised it as false after 1905."

[Zanthorus]

Luxemburg's difference with Lenin over the nature of opportunism in Russia comes from the fact that the upcoming Russian revolution will be a bourgeois revolution:


Let us not forget that the revolution soon to break out in Russia will be a bourgeois and not a proletarian revolution.

On this basis she says that Lenin's centralism will make it easier for bourgeois demagogues to influence the working-class.

But after the 1905 revolution she begins to say that only the proletariat can overthrow Tsarism:


...the power and the future of the revolutionary movement lies entirely and exclusively in the class-conscious Russian proletariat, since only they know what it is to sacrifice their lives by the thousand on the battlefield of freedom.

It seems to me that this is a qualitative change in outlook. Originally she is saying that the working-class must not organise itself along the lines of a national, centralised class party in order to avoid coming under the influence of bourgeois revolutionaries. Now she is saying that the proletariat will lead the way, which seems to preclude the possibility of them coming under the influence of bourgeois revolutionaries.

[RotStern]

I've been very interested in Luxemburgism, does any body know where I should start? :D

[Zanthorus]

I've been very interested in Luxemburgism, does any body know where I should start? :D

The two works which marked Luxmburg off from her contemporaries were The Mass Strike, the Political Party and the Trade Unions (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/index.htm) and her work on the national question, which Blian linked to earlier.

[Amphictyonis]

Actually, there is one concrete case where Marx did say that a country without capitalist relations of production could use a particular social form, greatly modified to the conditions of advanced industry, to jump over the capitalist phase of development and establish socialism. And that concrete case was none other than Russia itself.

.
The rest of your post was irrelevant because they said communism could only form in Russia if the advanced capitalist nations in the west also went socialist. Socialism in one nation? Who came up with that bullocks? Stalin.


And yes Marx did in fact say, according to his materialist conception of history, that no new stage of development would arise until the productive forces of the old were exhausted (this doesn't mean socialism would 'naturally' establish itself when capitalism can no longer sustain growth). Lenin thought capitalism had exhausted it's global productive forces. He jumped the gun so to speak. Not even Marx imagined capitalism could sustain exponential growth for so long in so many different ways. I don't blame Lenin for being impatient. So long as the capitalist market is growing a successful revolution isn't likely. This somewhat gets to the heart of the matter- the question concerning why socialism hasn't won the day (as of yet).

We're obviously not talking about Luxemburg here.

[Amphictyonis]

I guess this thread is attempting to do that in a way, but it also seems to be trying to evoke some embodiment of a pure and metaphysically true Marxist theory, some unadulterated line, which cannot exist in the real life of the class struggle.

Indeed, not when various parts of the globe have different socioeconomic and political climates. Each nation will have to come to socialism through different paths. The 'true Marxist theory' is found in Marx's unrevised writings and it's our jobs to interpret them to fit our respective modern conditions. We need new Lenins, Trotskys and Luxemburgs :)

[Die Neue Zeit]

From what I gathered, voluntarism generally refers to an emphasis on the subjective will of revolutionary militants in bringing about social change, as opposed to the objective development of social contradictions and class antagonisms.

Therein lies the problem. Now I too understand Devrim's anti-"voluntarist" rants, but notwithstanding Rosa Luxemburg's sectarian stint in the hyper-sectarian SDKPiL, maybe she was a bit more nuanced with the "subjective will of revolutionary militants in bringing about social change," but those left-coms today that lean councilist have extended the original "voluntarism" to Ferdinand Lassalle, Jean-Baptista Von Schweizer, August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht, and co?

Because, according to that particular left-com lot (like the ICC), building a mass party before a revolutionary period is already "voluntarist."

[Devrim]

Now I can understand Devrim's tirades against DNZ more (not that I agree).


Therein lies the problem. Now I too understand Devrim's anti-"voluntarist" rants,

I thought it was quite a widely understood concept in Marxist circles. Obviously I was wrong and will explain it in the future when I use it. It does beg the question of why you didn't ask what it meant though.


Therein lies the problem. Now I too understand Devrim's anti-"voluntarist" rants, but notwithstanding Rosa Luxemburg's sectarian stint in the hyper-sectarian SDKPiL, maybe she was a bit more nuanced with the "subjective will of revolutionary militants in bringing about social change," but those left-coms today that lean councilist have extended the original "voluntarism" to Ferdinand Lassalle, Jean-Baptista Von Schweizer, August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht, and co?

I don't understand this sentence (most probably because it is grammatically incorrect). Is it a statement or a question? I certainly don't think we have extend our critique of voluntarism to those people though.


Because, according to that particular left-com lot (like the ICC), building a mass party before a revolutionary period is already "voluntarist."

Part of it comes down to the fact that your whole approach lacks any relation to reality whatsoever. All of your talk of building a mass party with its 'cultural appendages' for want of a better word bears no relationship to the position that tiny groups of communists find themselves in today. Having these things is desirable, and I would go as far as to say essential. However, the can't just be created by the power of the militants on will and can only come into being as a creation of the mass activity of the working class. Their is a difference between the working class constructing these sort of organisations and political organisations trying to set them up now without them having any base in the class. Even with the biggest leftist groups to take this approach today would to a certain extent mean for them to effectively abandon political activity to take up 'social work'. For smaller organisations this would certainly be the case.

Of course, beyond that, we have serious differences on the nature of the party. We don't say that it is impossible to build a mass party outside periods of intense struggle. We say it will be impossible to build a revolutionary one.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The last thing Marxism needs is another ism to divide it. Instead of erecting these doctrinaire isms, we should focus on what unites Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, etc. as Marxists and focus on their unique contributions to our history and the abiding relevance of the best parts of their insights to our current practice.

I don't really see it in the way of creating another '-ism'. Although there is a tiny Luxembourgist network today, Luxemborgism has never existed as a distinct political current, and I think it is unlikely to emerge as one.

In fact the ideas of Luxembourg have been used by various groups of completely different tendencies. The early IS, for runner of the SWP, was often referred to as 'Luxembourgist'. Of course the image of Luxembourg is also used by groups who have nothing to do with her ideas at all, such as the PSL in the US, merely because the image of a female communist martyr is a romantic one.

Our organisation, the ICC, is one that I think legitimately claims a part of Luxembourg's heritage in that many of our economic ideas and our theory of imperialism finds its base in her work. Nevertheless we reject a great deal of her political conclusions, such as that on parlimentarism as the communist left, who at the time were a majority in her party did at the time. In that way it would be wrong to classify us as 'Luxembourgist'.

In a way on of the reasons why I imagine Luxembourgism never evolved as a current was that her death meant that she never took a position on the great issue of the time, the degeneration of the Russia revolution, and in a way the political currents on the left today are still defined by the attitudes they took towards that event.

When Bob talks about "focus[ing] on what unites Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, etc. as Marxists", it presume that people do see them as being 'united as Marxists'. I think for many who talk about her ideas today, they see Lenin and Trotsky as being at the head of the counter revolution, and to those people his suggestion would make no sense at all.

Devrim

[Hit The North]

When Bob talks about "focus[ing] on what unites Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, etc. as Marxists", it presume that people do see them as being 'united as Marxists'. I think for many who talk about her ideas today, they see Lenin and Trotsky as being at the head of the counter revolution, and to those people his suggestion would make no sense at all.

Devrim

I think that Lenin, Trotsky and Rosa would have disagreed with these people and took it as self-evident that they were united by Marxism and, notwithstanding the nuances of their theoretical differences, saw themselves as occupying the same side of the barricades. So I'd argue that those "many who talk about her ideas today" are guilty of serious historical revision.

[Devrim]

I think that Lenin, Trotsky and Rosa would have disagreed with these people and took it as self-evident that they were united by Marxism and, notwithstanding the nuances of their theoretical differences, saw themselves as occupying the same side of the barricades. So I'd argue that those "many who talk about her ideas today" are guilty of serious historical revision.

I don't think so. They are not ideas that I defend, but I think they are legitimate. Would you say that Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin are 'united' by Marxism? I think not.

Devrim

[penguinfoot]

I don't think so. They are not ideas that I defend, but I think they are legitimate. Would you say that Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin are 'united' by Marxism? I think not.

It is, I think, still appropriate to talk about the existence of a classical Marxist tradition that encompassed the period from the death of Engels to the bureaucratization of the Soviet Union and the Third International. I say this only in the sense that there was a body of theorists who committed themselves to developing the insights of Marx and Engels in ways that would help explain the changes experienced by capitalism since the deaths of the original two theorists and serve as a basis for political action in their respective national contexts - and that these theorists accepted the basic principle that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself. It seems hard to deny that the last years of the 19th century as well as the first two decades of the 20th witnessed the development of Marxist theory in a way that has rarely been witnessed since, with the possible exception of the debates around Marx's early writings in the post-war period, and notwithstanding the tendency of the Second International to turn Marxism into a bland form of economic reductionism and determinism.

[Devrim]

It is, I think, still appropriate to talk about the existence of a classical Marxist tradition that encompassed the period from the death of Engels to the bureaucratization of the Soviet Union and the Third International.

Yes, it is, but this is not a unified current as it appeared at the time of the struggle against Bernstein and the 'revisionists'. We can divide this current into different factions. For us we would place Lenin as a 'centrist'. If you look at it from the 'Leninist' perspective, this obviously isn't the same. Lenin would then occupy the left position, those we refer to as the left, the ultra-left position, whilst those Lenin refers to as 'centrists' are, for us, the right.


It seems hard to deny that the last years of the 19th century as well as the first two decades of the 20th witnessed the development of Marxist theory in a way that has rarely been witnessed since,

I would deny it. I think that there has been a continuous development in communist theory. The difference between today and those times is the relevance that communists have within the working class. If there had been a revolution in Britain in the early 70s led by the SWP, I would imagine that Tony Cliff's work on state capitalism* would be seen as a crucial part in the 'development of Marxist theory' and there are people today who think that it is.

The difference is not at all in the development of theory, but in its resonance within the class.

Devrim

*Which personally I think is neither original nor deep.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes, it is, but this is not a unified current as it appeared at the time of the struggle against Bernstein and the 'revisionists'. We can divide this current into different factions. For us we would place Lenin as a 'centrist'. If you look at it from the 'Leninist' perspective, this obviously isn't the same. Lenin would then occupy the left position, those we refer to as the left, the ultra-left position, whilst those Lenin refers to as 'centrists' are, for us, the right.

I'm too much into non-political books right now to comment on your response to my voluntarism post, but sufficed to say you are confusing Lenin's position with Trotsky's.

Lenin openly admitted to belonging to "the Marxist center."

[Devrim]

I'm too much into non-political books right now to comment on your response to my voluntarism post,

I hope you find it both enjoyable and time consuming.


but sufficed to say you are confusing Lenin's position with Trotsky's.

Lenin openly admitted to belonging to "the Marxist center."

I didn't refer to Lenin's position at all. I referred to 'Leninists'.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Part of it comes down to the fact that your whole approach lacks any relation to reality whatsoever. All of your talk of building a mass party with its 'cultural appendages' for want of a better word bears no relationship to the position that tiny groups of communists find themselves in today. Having these things is desirable, and I would go as far as to say essential. However, the can't just be created by the power of the militants on will and can only come into being as a creation of the mass activity of the working class. Their is a difference between the working class constructing these sort of organisations and political organisations trying to set them up now without them having any base in the class. Even with the biggest leftist groups to take this approach today would to a certain extent mean for them to effectively abandon political activity to take up 'social work'. For smaller organisations this would certainly be the case.

Of course, beyond that, we have serious differences on the nature of the party. We don't say that it is impossible to build a mass party outside periods of intense struggle. We say it will be impossible to build a revolutionary one.

Devrim

The SAPD wasn't a truly mass party, yet set up the cultural organizations for the rest the working class.

If you interpret "political activity" to mean mere protest fetishes, then yes there are better ways to organize politically than that. Political education (not "socialist education" a la WSM or DeLeonism) is a start.

Your last sentence needs to be fleshed out more. Define "a revolutionary one." I do think it's possible to build a mass party committed programmatically to class struggle and social revolution outside of revolutionary periods (which you conflate with "periods of intense struggle"). That's a centrist formulation of the revolution question, which rejects sociopolitical reformism and also r-r-revolutionism.