Trotsky and Luxembourg

[Impulse97]

I have found that both Trotskyism and Luxembourgism are rather agreeable compared to other tendencies. I was wondering if its possible to have a combination of the two.

If I'm not mistaken they both advocate a minimalistic government and are anti authoritarian/Stalinist. Although, Trots advocate a vanguard party whereas it seems that is one thing the Lux's wish to be rid of.

I feel like such a noob for asking all of this. I hope to find my place in the spectrum of communism/socialism and end this confusion/ignorance. The Radical spectrum is so varied and uses terms not used in the schools or media that I feel it's hard for the non commie to fully understand what it all means (due to ignorance, not necessarily stupidity) and which may hinder their progression to communism/true leftist thought.:hammersickle::trotski::hammersickle::trot ski::hammersickle::trotski:

[red cat]

The Bolsheviks were headed by Lenin, and not Stalin during Luxemburg's time. Her criticisms of the Bolsheviks therefore went against Leninism itself. However, she engaged in revolutionary activities till the end of her life and died in an attempt to conduct an insurrection. Leninism was quite new then and she never got the time and opportunity to realize the importance of Leninism through practice. For these reasons, Marxist-Leninists consider her opposition to the Bolsheviks as a mistake and not a deliberate counter revolutionary stand. So, all MLs principally uphold Luxemburg as a communist revolutionary, while criticizing her partially anti-Bolshevik stand.

[YouSSR]

Why would you follow someone who's main accomplishment is leading a failed revolution and who opposed someone who lead a successful revolution (Lenin) and influenced dozens of successful revolutions since? If you're at all interested in the real world, what are you doing looking back at a failure of the 1920s?

Trotsky at least was closer to actual socialism, but he too was a failure and an unpleasant, bitter man. It doesn't really matter much, his version of communism is not that different from ML. The main difference is the kind of people who would be drawn to the ideology of a failed revolutionary and an opportunist like Trotsky. These are the same kind of people who are drawn to Luxembourg, meaning they live in the past and hold an ideal of communism rather than the reality of the last 90 years.

My advice, look at Maoism, which to me is the most relevant and highly developed form of Marxism. To be honest, in the real world where communist revolutions are actually happening the debate between Lenin/Stalin and Luxembourg/Trotsky is over, and it should be obvious who won.

[Manic Impressive]

Why would you follow someone who's main accomplishment is leading a failed revolution and who opposed someone who lead a successful revolution (Lenin) and influenced dozens of successful revolutions since? If you're at all interested in the real world, what are you doing looking back at a failure of the 1920s?

Trotsky at least was closer to actual socialism, but he too was a failure and an unpleasant, bitter man. It doesn't really matter much, his version of communism is not that different from ML. The main difference is the kind of people who would be drawn to the ideology of a failed revolutionary and an opportunist like Trotsky. These are the same kind of people who are drawn to Luxembourg, meaning they live in the past and hold an ideal of communism rather than the reality of the last 90 years.

My advice, look at Maoism, which to me is the most relevant and highly developed form of Marxism. To be honest, in the real world where communist revolutions are actually happening the debate between Lenin/Stalin and Luxembourg/Trotsky is over, and it should be obvious who won.
:confused: The success of the Russian revolution had more to do with the conditions in Russia which lead to the revolution than Lenin he was just in the right place at the right time to take advantage of it. Discounting other revolutionaries structural ideas just because their revolutions failed is quite superficial and don't forget M-L and Maoists have all consistently failed in their application of communism.

[YouSSR]

:confused: The success of the Russian revolution had more to do with the conditions in Russia which lead to the revolution than Lenin he was just in the right place at the right time to take advantage of it. Discounting other revolutionaries structural ideas just because their revolutions failed is quite superficial and don't forget M-L and Maoists have all consistently failed in their application of communism.

Just because society overwhelmingly determines history rather than individuals doesn't mean the individual has absolutely no power. Why did Marx write if everything was already set in stone? The theory of vanguardism has shown itself to work repeatedly all across the world, not in creating revolutions, but guiding them towards the path of communism and protecting them from outside invasion. Lenin himself is irrelevant, he's dead, but his genius, his leadership, and his contributions to Marxism are still as valuable today as they were in 1917.

Marxism is the theory of revolution. Utopian socialism existed before Marx and after him. If your contributions to Marxism fail to produce a successful revolution, what value are they? Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "consistently failed" but if you mean "failed to create world communist utopia" than you are a utopian.

[IronEastBloc]

If I'm not mistaken they both advocate a minimalistic government and are anti authoritarian/Stalinist.

LMAO, I just posted this quote in another thread for someone who thought trotsky was some kind've peaceful anti-stalin:


Root out the counterrevolutionaries without mercy, lock up suspicious characters in concentration camps... Shirkers will be shot, regardless of past service..." (1918)
Dmitri Volkogonov, Trotsky: The Eternal Revolutionary [London: HarperCollins, 1996], p213

[Impulse97]

LMAO, I just posted this quote in another thread for someone who thought trotsky was some kind've peaceful anti-stalin:

I never said he was peaceful, But rather that he was nearly the complete opposite of Stalin.

@Red Cat: Yea I knew about her death in the 1918-19 rebellion, and probably should have mentioned it. Thanks for the info about the ML opinion. It's good to know about the relation to ML though, clears up things a bit.

At this point I think more info on Trotsky would be useful. He seems to be a bit more inline with my thoughts. Also, what are the views of this fora on Democratic Socialism? Do you feel it is a viable option in a modern society?

The main thing I disagree with in most forms of Communism is that it seems to place a strong emphasis on oppressing the oppressors. While It may be necicary during the revolt to keep it going, would those people jailed, be allowed to go free and live a good life after the rebellion? Or would this result in them being incarcirated for extended periods afterwrards and thus an authoritarian state?

Lastly, I've been reading up on the dictatorship of the proletariat. I want some clarification, This refers to putting the Working class as the ruling class as the capitalist class is now. The capitalist class, while flawed, holds and has a democratic government. Would the DoP retain the same democracy but, with the people as the ruling class or be a true dictatorship with one person in charge? I ask mostly because I don't sully trust Wikipedia:hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle :.

[red cat]

I never said he was peaceful, But rather that he was nearly the complete opposite of Stalin.

@Red Cat: Yea I knew about her death in the 1918-19 rebellion, and probably should have mentioned it. Thanks for the info about the ML opinion. It's good to know about the relation to ML though, clears up things a bit.

At this point I think more info on Trotsky would be useful. He seems to be a bit more inline with my thoughts. Also, what are the views of this fora on Democratic Socialism? Do you feel it is a viable option in a modern society?

The main thing I disagree with in most forms of Communism is that it seems to place a strong emphasis on oppressing the oppressors. While It may be necicary during the revolt to keep it going, would those people jailed, be allowed to go free and live a good life after the rebellion? Or would this result in them being incarcirated for extended periods afterwrards and thus an authoritarian state?

Lastly, I've been reading up on the dictatorship of the proletariat. I want some clarification, This refers to putting the Working class as the ruling class as the capitalist class is now. The capitalist class, while flawed, holds and has a democratic government. Would the DoP retain the same democracy but, with the people as the ruling class or be a true dictatorship with one person in charge? I ask mostly because I don't sully trust Wikipedia:hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle :.

The democratic government of the capitalist class is democratic as long as interactions within the bourgeoisie are concerned. Its only true relationship with the proletariat is that of a bourgeois dictatorship. Similarly, the DOTP refers to democratic interactions within the proletariat, and a class-dictatorship of the proletariat suppressing the bourgeoisie.

[La Peur Rouge]

Why would you follow someone who's main accomplishment is leading a failed revolution

Leading a failed revolution is Luxemburg's main accomplishment?

[Impulse97]

It isn't her main accomplishment...She has many others, but when you fail at something no one remembers your successes. :hammersickle::trotski::hammersickle:

[ComradeOm]

I have found that both Trotskyism and Luxembourgism are rather agreeable compared to other tendencies. I was wondering if its possible to have a combination of the twoSure, if you want. There's nothing stopping you from reading their works (check out Marxists.org if you haven't already) and taking ideas from both. They were certainly two of the most prominent Marxist theorists of their time and are well worth reading. Just don't get hung up on particular labels; most of these are pretty redundant anyway

[Crux]

The Bolsheviks were headed by Lenin, and not Stalin during Luxemburg's time. Her criticisms of the Bolsheviks therefore went against Leninism itself. However, she engaged in revolutionary activities till the end of her life and died in an attempt to conduct an insurrection. Leninism was quite new then and she never got the time and opportunity to realize the importance of Leninism through practice. For these reasons, Marxist-Leninists consider her opposition to the Bolsheviks as a mistake and not a deliberate counter revolutionary stand. So, all MLs principally uphold Luxemburg as a communist revolutionary, while criticizing her partially anti-Bolshevik stand.
Well that was Trotksy's position, but it certainly wasn't Stalins.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/06/luxemberg.htm

[Amphictyonis]

It doesn't matter. Take Marx/Engels writings and apply them to today's socioeconomic reality. Luxemburg, in her time, was closer to what we should strive for because she lived in an advanced capitalist nation rather than Russia which was a nation not yet ready for socialism.

I'm tiring of the tendency thing in general.

[red cat]

Well that was Trotksy's psoition, but it certainly wasn't Stalins.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/06/luxemberg.htm

Might be so. But the ML line does not uphold all the stands of a single person, which sadly many other lines do.

[Amphictyonis]

If your contributions to Marxism fail to produce a successful revolution, what value are they? .

I wasn't aware communism had existed anywhere on earth.

[Niccolò Rossi]

rather than Russia which was a nation not yet ready for socialism.

Could you please get rid of that 'Left Communist' in your profile tendency. You're a Menshevik. You're just confusing people.

Nic.

[Jazzhands]

Why would you follow someone who's main accomplishment is leading a failed revolution and who opposed someone who lead a successful revolution (Lenin) and influenced dozens of successful revolutions since? If you're at all interested in the real world, what are you doing looking back at a failure of the 1920s?

You're talking as if it was somehow Luxemburg's fault that she had her brains blown out. I think her most relevant accomplishment for today is her critiques on Lenin's use of terror. That conclusively proved that you can critique something and still support it, as opposed to splitting and purging, which only divide revolutionary organizations and many times even kill dedicated revolutionaries. Something a lot of assholes on here don't seem to understand. Not naming names, but it starts with an H and ends with an Oxha. So she is very relevant to our movement's ideological health.



Trotsky at least was closer to actual socialism, but he too was a failure and an unpleasant, bitter man.

Again, being murdered doesn't mean you failed at political affairs. It just means your body failed to survive being brained with a goddamn ice axe.


It doesn't really matter much, his version of communism is not that different from ML.

True.



The main difference is the kind of people who would be drawn to the ideology of a failed revolutionary and an opportunist like Trotsky.

He took an ice axe to the head. what have you done lately?

[Amphictyonis]

Could you please get rid of that 'Left Communist' in your profile tendency. You're a Menshevik. You're just confusing people.

Nic.

I'm not sure if you read what I just said but the ongoings in Russia are almost irrelevant to today's situation (unless we're talking about what not to do). What confuses people is the non stop (and rather idiotic) tendency wars concerning issues which have absolutely nothing to do with our modern world. As I've told other people I'm an 'orthodox Marxist' if anything and don't much 'follow' Lenin or Martov let alone Luxemburg, Trotsky or any other dead revolutionary (not even Kautsky).

I have 'left communist' in my stupid tendency thing to simply highlight the importance of maintaining democracy and workers councils during the socialist period and to summarize my criticism of the Bolsheviks taking power from the workers councils (Soviets) and handing power to the centralized communist party (not that the Russian situation would have been any different in the end either way).

It doesn't even matter. You're sucking me into some meaningless war of words when in reality nothing that happened in Russia should be of any consequence outside of learning from history (not emulating Lenin's path to socialism in Russia).

There needs to be a sort of 'reset button' pushed. We need to forget Stalin, forget Mao,Trotsky... forget even Lenin and do what these people did in their time- we need to apply Marx/Engels to our current conditions. Lenin has some good insights as do other post Marx thinkers so they shouldn't be discarded completley but at the foundation of our modern movement should be Marx/Engels.

[Amphictyonis]

This thread is just going to re ignite an argument from an old thread I care not take part in. I'm a fortune teller. :)

[Zanthorus]

I have 'left communist' in my stupid tendency thing to simply highlight the importance of maintaining democracy and workers councils during the socialist period and to summarize my criticism of the Bolsheviks taking power from the workers councils (Soviets) and handing power to the centralized communist party (not that the Russian situation would have been any different in the end either way).

The position you outline is an anarchist or 'Councillist' critique of Bolshevism, half-mixed in with your latent Menshevism. I don't even think it is meaningful to talk about a Left-Communist critique of Bolshevism, the Communist Left were among the first and most ardent defenders of the Russian revolution.

[Manic Impressive]

Why did Marx write if everything was already set in stone?I absolutely agree with this but I would expand it to Lenin and Mao. They didn't crack some magic code which ensures success, in fact they both produced systems which have had positive results but have ultimately failed in achieving their goals. Shouldn't we be learning from their successes and flaws and applying this acquired knowledge into creating a new theory for revolution.


The theory of vanguardism has shown itself to work repeatedly all across the world, not in creating revolutions, but guiding them towards the path of communism and protecting them from outside invasion. Lenin himself is irrelevant, he's dead, but his genius, his leadership, and his contributions to Marxism are still as valuable today as they were in 1917.It hasn't worked even the Cubans have admitted the soviet model has not worked for them. I think vanguardism is one option and in some cases it will work better than others but it must not be the only option.


Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "consistently failed" but if you mean "failed to create world communist utopia" than you are a utopian.
By consistently I mean every attempt at building communism using the vanguard theory has descended into a corrupt bourgeois anti-worker state. Have you ever heard the expression flogging a dead horse?

Thing is the OP was quite an interesting question and I was looking forward to hearing the opinions of Trotskyists and Luxembourgists about the similarities between their theories. But no I should have known that was impossible without dogmatic M-L's butting in and derailing the thread with their sectarian bull shit

[Amphictyonis]

The position you outline is an anarchist or 'Councillist' critique of Bolshevism, half-mixed in with your latent Menshevism. I don't even think it is meaningful to talk about a Left-Communist critique of Bolshevism, the Communist Left were among the first and most ardent defenders of the Russian revolution.
LOL. Tendency war?

[Impulse97]

I agree let's drop this whole tendency thing.

It doesn't matter as long as your not a Stalinist, as long as you continue the fight for the revolution or even democratic elections if they present themselves. Get the masses a real, honest, socialist/communist nation and they'll come around sooner or later.:hammersickle::trotski::hammersickle:

[StockholmSyndrome]

Why would you follow someone who's main accomplishment is leading a failed revolution and who opposed someone who lead a successful revolution (Lenin) and influenced dozens of successful revolutions since? If you're at all interested in the real world, what are you doing looking back at a failure of the 1920s?

Trotsky at least was closer to actual socialism, but he too was a failure and an unpleasant, bitter man. It doesn't really matter much, his version of communism is not that different from ML. The main difference is the kind of people who would be drawn to the ideology of a failed revolutionary and an opportunist like Trotsky. These are the same kind of people who are drawn to Luxembourg, meaning they live in the past and hold an ideal of communism rather than the reality of the last 90 years.

My advice, look at Maoism, which to me is the most relevant and highly developed form of Marxism. To be honest, in the real world where communist revolutions are actually happening the debate between Lenin/Stalin and Luxembourg/Trotsky is over, and it should be obvious who won.

I think you have a very simplistic understanding of Marx. The "reality of the last 90 years" doesn't seem to have taught you too much.

[Niccolò Rossi]

It doesn't even matter. You're sucking me into some meaningless war of words

It wasn't my intent. I just wanted to put the boot in.

To try and contribute something relevant:


If I'm not mistaken they both advocate a minimalistic government and are anti authoritarian/Stalinist. Although, Trots advocate a vanguard party whereas it seems that is one thing the Lux's wish to be rid of.

I would suggest reading Trotsky and Luxemburg in their own words rather than some wikipedia nonsense.

Nic.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Get the masses a real, honest, socialist/communist nation and they'll come around sooner or later.

Honest question, do you see anything wrong with this sentence?

Nic.

[Hit The North]

I agree let's drop this whole tendency thing.

It doesn't matter as long as your not a Stalinist, as long as you continue the fight for the revolution or even democratic elections if they present themselves. Get the masses a real, honest, socialist/communist nation and they'll come around sooner or later.:hammersickle::trotski::hammersickle:

Only the working class can secure a real, honest socialist/communist society; no one can "get it" for them.

It is only by setting this principle, that the revolution must be the act of the working class itself, at the centre of our politics, that we can overcome "this whole tendency thing".

[Amphictyonis]

Honest question, do you see anything wrong with this sentence?

Nic.

Obviously you can't "get the masses a real communist nation". Thats the job of the masses I thanked his post because he's willing to ignore the silly tendency fetish. A positive thing to see in the learning section :)

[RED DAVE]

My advice, look at Maoism, which to me is the most relevant and highly developed form of Marxism.It sure is if you really like failure.

If you want to link up with the Marxist tendency responsible for the largest capitalist society on Earth, try Maoism.

RED DAVE

[hatzel]

I agree let's drop this whole tendency thing.

It doesn't matter as long as your not a Stalinist...

Ah...way to drop the whole tendency thing...

[Amphictyonis]

If Marx were alive what do you think he'd say about not only Marxism but all the "ists" (factions/tendencies)?

[Hit The North]

If Marx were alive what do you think he'd say about not only Marxism but all the "ists" (factions/tendencies)?

He'd say, "I'm no Stalinist!" Among other things.

[Amphictyonis]

He'd say, "I'm no Stalinist!" Among other things.

I think he'd come up with the phrase "no war but tendency war!" and go after Maoist third worldists for hacking up the very fibers of reality then Engels would join Trotsky and nuke Stalinists but not before putting all the anarchists in the gulag. The true path to communism.