Luxemburgism

[Toppler]

I am sort of a revisionist ML (and I have to admit, a bit of a Sovietophile, through I don't like Stalin [but don't believe him to be "like Hitler"]), but I am interested in other tendencies. I saw some members here who are Luxemburgists. I know it is a left communist school of throught founded by Rosa Luxemburg, but what are its main ideas? The Wikipedia page is too vague and I don't get much from it.

[Property Is Robbery]

I believe it is mainly just Council Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism)

I could be wrong though

[caramelpence]

There is not really such a thing as "Luxemburgism", whatever some people on this forum describe themselves as, and it isn't appropriate to see her as a Left Communist either. She did have a number of important contributions to Marxist theory, however - her essay Organizational Questions is based around the argument that Lenin's concept of the revolutionary party puts too much emphasis on the subjective factor, that is, the way in which the party intervenes in the class struggle from without, and that it is necessary to see the party as something that emerges out of the struggles of the class as a whole (rather than being separate from it) and to take the current state of working-class struggle as the starting-point for tactics and strategy. I think it's fair to say that her writings on the party were motivated at least partly by the demands of context, in that she was also faced with the task of critiquing the adventurist tactics of the nationalist Polish Socialist Party at same time as her engagement with Lenin, in much the same way that Lenin's formulations in WITBD and other writings on the party were conditioned by the need to confront economism in Russian social democracy rather than being a solely theoretical or abstract discussion, and for those reasons their views on the party are actually closer than their own writings might suggest to someone unfamiliar with their respective contexts. For me personally, and apart from her writings on the party, Luxemburg's most brilliant theoretical contribution was her characterization of the revolutionary situation as the mass strike and her careful distinction between the mass strike as historical product and the general strike as planned event.

More generally, I would caution against seeking to understand the history of Marxism in terms of "tendencies". It seems more appropriate to look at individual theorists, including the contradictions in their thought, the way they developed as revolutionaries over time, the impact of context, and so on, rather than seeking to push them into pre-packaged categories like "Leninism" or "heterodox Trotskyism", because by doing that you can end up ignoring their specific contributions and their disagreements with their contemporaries.

[Zanthorus]

I know it is a left communist school of throught founded by Rosa Luxemburg, but what are its main ideas?

I don't believe that there is any coherent 'Luxemburgist' tendency that can be said to derive it's politics from the writings of Rosa Luxemburg. First of all, Rosa was not a Left Communist. The Communist Left is defined in part by it's initial membership in the Third International and the subsequent development of a critique of the dominant line that began to emerge from around the Second Congress onwards. Luxemburg's battered corpse was in the Landwehr canal long before 'Left Communism' could be said to exist as a half-way coherent tendency. The currents that eventually went on to become the Communist Left in Germany had initially formed the 'International Socialists of Germany' (Later the International Communists of Germany) at the outbreak of the First World War, whereas Luxemburg's Spartacist League was initially associated with elements of the USPD. At the founding congress of the KPD she was on the side of those who supported participation in the elections to Germany's newly-founded national assembly as opposed to the Left which thought that anything that tacitly recognised the right of the assembly to exist would be a counter-revolutionary action. Politically therefore her trajectory was in line with the centre of the KPD.

Of course perhaps if she had not died she would've joined the KAPD, or allowed the KPD Left to takeover the party rather than de facto expelling it at the Heidelberg congress, but trying to place Luxemburg's politics into the framework of events that happened after her death is misleading. She needs to be understood with reference to the specific political situation she found herself in during her lifetime, which was was as a leading figure of the left, revolutionary wing of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany. Despite the influence she may have had on the Communist Left, she cannot be understood in terms of a tendency which arose in response to a political situation which she herself never experienced.


I believe it is mainly just Council Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism)

You are right that groups existing today call themselves 'Luxemburgist' whose politics are hard to seperate from what is known as 'Council Communism'. This is probably due in large part to the appropriation of Luxemburg's legacy by the German Left who interpreted her criticisms of the Bolsheviks in a way which fit into their own schemas. I would argue that much of the German Left's attempts on this point were not entirely honest though. It's clear from her text on the Russian revolution that she not only still held to many of the orthodox Social-Democratic conceptions with regards to parliamentary institutions and political freedom and democracy, but in fact her critique is fundamentally a Social-Democratic criticism of Bolshevik policy, which I think any honest Left Communist would have to reject (As would any Anarchist for that matter, since they have also tried to rope in Luxemburg for 'libertarian socialsm').

For reference, here are the only two explicitly 'Luxemburgist' groups in existence which I am personally aware of:

International Luxemburgist Network (http://www.luxemburgism.lautre.net/)
Communist Democracy (Luxemburgist) (http://democom.perso.neuf.fr/communistdemocracy.htm)

I think they are both dishonest in self-describing as such. Here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1935/06/lux.htm) is an article by Trotsky I found on the subject which may also be of use.

[MarxSchmarx]

It's clear from her text on the Russian revolution that she not only still held to many of the orthodox Social-Democratic conceptions with regards to parliamentary institutions and political freedom and democracy, but in fact her critique is fundamentally a Social-Democratic criticism of Bolshevik policy


Could you elaborate on that? Many non-social democratic leftists (some marxists and anarchists critical of the 2nd international) also criticized the authoritarianism of the Bolshevik revolution. So what makes Luxemburgs critique more social democratic?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Just consider Gesine Lotzsch's remarks in a Die Linke conference about Luxemburg on some merger between "communist" and "liberal" values. This was the recent controversy that the German media chewed on.

It is quite telling that both she and the renegade Kautsky criticized the Bolsheviks for all the wrong reasons. For all things "not turning necessity into virtue" or defense of the discredited Constituent Assembly, neither they nor those closest to their political positions condemned the Bolshevik coups d'etat of 1918 (thugs shutting down soviets which returned Left-SR and Menshevik-Internationalist majorities).

[Die Rote Fahne]

I am sort of a revisionist ML (and I have to admit, a bit of a Sovietophile, through I don't like Stalin [but don't believe him to be "like Hitler"]), but I am interested in other tendencies. I saw some members here who are Luxemburgists. I know it is a left communist school of throught founded by Rosa Luxemburg, but what are its main ideas? The Wikipedia page is too vague and I don't get much from it.
Similar to council communists in some aspects.

We do not reject elections.

Spontaneous organization for the formation of a party oriented class struggle.

Bottom up (de-centralized) party and economic plans. Avoiding the authoritarianism of Leninism.

Other stuff. Your best bet is to hit up marxists.org and read some of her works. I'm terrible at explaining things without taking a long time to think about it... ADD perhaps?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Could you elaborate on that? Many non-social democratic leftists (some marxists and anarchists critical of the 2nd international) also criticized the authoritarianism of the Bolshevik revolution. So what makes Luxemburgs critique more social democratic?

Note:

Social Democracy at the time referred to Revolutionary Socialism. Not the modern Social Democracy, which refers to welfare-state capitalism.

[ZeroNowhere]

Bottom up (de-centralized) party and economic plans. Avoiding the authoritarianism of Leninism.This is like a De Leonite supporting the Labour Party.

[Die Rote Fahne]

This is like a De Leonite supporting the Labour Party.

Do explain.

[Zanthorus]

Could you elaborate on that? Many non-social democratic leftists (some marxists and anarchists critical of the 2nd international) also criticized the authoritarianism of the Bolshevik revolution. So what makes Luxemburgs critique more social democratic?

Luxemburg does not attack the hierarchical nature of the Bolshevik revolution, she attacks the failure of provisions for political freedom and the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. The actual dissolution of the CA by contrast was led by an Anarchist Kronstadt sailor and had been a fairly big part of the Russian Anarchist movements programme.


Do explain.

Why don't we start here:


This [the incorporation of non-proletarian movemens under the leadership of the proletariat] 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.- Rosa Luxemburg, Organisational Questions of the Russian Social-Democracy

Or perhaps we could note the fact that the SDKPil was also one of those nasty hyper-centralised party machines?

I refer you to the International Bolshevik Tendency's 'Lenin and the Vanguard Party (http://www.bolshevik.org/Pamphlets/LeninVanguard/LVP%202.htm)' whose section 'Behind Luxemburg's Anti-Leninist Polemic' is directly relevant here.

[Tower of Bebel]

For all things "not turning necessity into virtue" or defense of the discredited Constituent Assembly, neither they nor those closest to their political positions condemned the Bolshevik coups d'etat of 1918 (thugs shutting down soviets which returned Left-SR and Menshevik-Internationalist majorities).
Ahum, Luxemburg defended the Assembly, not for the sake of the Assembly nor parliamentary democracy, but against such "coups d'etat". I still think her critique of the Russian Revolution is largely correct.

Even though her emphasis is a bit, let's say, spontanious by writing that "the living fluid of the popular mood continuously flows around the representative bodies, penetrates them and guides them", she was quite correct to support democratic and republican principles against the more elitist "remedy which Trotsky and Lenin have found; [namely] the elimination of democracy as such".

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Comrade, have you read The Inform Candidate's stuff on Bukharin suggesting a Revolutionary Convention, whether inside the Constituent Assembly or outside it?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-we-make-t151891/index.html?p=2063012

[Luís Henrique]

Ahum, Luxemburg defended the Assembly, not for the sake of the Assembly nor parliamentary democracy, but against such "coups d'etat". I still think her critique of the Russian Revolution is largely correct.

Her critique of the Russian Revolution is largely correct, but it isn't similar to the critique of left communists and council communists (if we really need to stamp a label into her, she would seem more like a "right communist" than a "left communist").

******************************

But there are (mis)interpretations of Rosa Luxemburg for all tastes, from an Anarchist "spontaneist" Rosa to an orthodox third-international Rosa. It is easy to do; you just take any of her production out of context, and, presto, you have the Rosa Luxemburg you wanted. Want a "left communist" Luxemburg? Pick her dismissal of unions as counter-revolutionary bureaucratic machines (made within an actual uprising against the bourgeois State) and generalise it to times of stolid non-revolutionary conjunctures. Want a Leninist Luxemburg? Pick her defense of the Bolsheviks against opportunist criticism from Mensheviks or Kautskyites, and ignore the strong criticism she also made to the adventurism and bureaucratism of the Bolsheviks. Etc.

Luís Henrique

[Die Rote Fahne]

This is like a De Leonite supporting the Labour Party.

Why don't we start here:

- Rosa Luxemburg, Organisational Questions of the Russian Social-Democracy




...Therefore, Social Democracy is, as a rule, hostile to any manifestation of localism or federalism. It strives to unite all workers and all worker organizations in a single party, no matter what national, religious, or occupational differences may exist among them. The Social Democracy abandons this principle and gives way to federalism only under exceptional conditions, as in the case of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

What we are considering is the degree of centralization necessary inside the unified, single Russian party in view of the peculiar conditions under which it has to function. Looking at the matter from the angle of the formal tasks of the Social Democracy, in its capacity as a party of class struggle, it appears at first that the power and energy of the party are directly dependent on the possibility of centralizing the party. However, these formal tasks apply to all active parties. In the case of the Social

Democracy, they are less important than is the influence of historic conditions.
The Social Democratic movement is the first in the history of class societies which reckons, in all its phases and through its entire course, on the organization and the direct, independent action of the masses.

Because of this, Social Democracy creates an organizational type that is entirely different from those common to earlier revolutionary movements, such as those of the Jacobins and the adherents of Blanqui. Lenin seems to slight this fact when he presents in his book the opinion that the revolutionary Social Democrat is nothing else than a “Jacobin indissolubly joined to the organization of the proletariat, which has become conscious of its class interests.” He forgets that this difference implies a complete revision of our ideas on organization and, therefore, an entirely different conception of centralism and the relations existing between the party and the struggle itself.

…Social Democracy…arises historically out of the elementary class struggle. It spreads and develops in accordance with the following dialectical contradiction. The proletarian army is recruited and becomes aware of its objectives in the course of the struggle itself. The activity of the party organization, the growth of the proletarians’ awareness of the objectives of the struggle and the struggle itself, are not different things separated chronologically and mechanically. They are only different aspects of the same struggle, there do not exist for the Social Democracy detailed sets of tactics which a Central Committee can teach the party membership in the same way as troops are instructed in their training camps. Furthermore, the range of influence of the socialist party is constantly fluctuating with the ups and downs of the struggle in the course of which the organization is created and grows.

For this reason Social Democratic centralism cannot be based on the mechanical subordination and blind obedience of the party membership to the leading party center. For this reason, the Social Democratic movement cannot allow the erection of an air-tight partition between the class-conscious nucleus of the proletariat already in the party and its immediate popular environment, the nonparty sections of the proletariat.
- Rosa Luxemburg, Organizational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy

I certainly hope you don't think Rosa Luxemburg supported the centralization methods of Lenin, or that she supported that sort of top down control. In actuality she promoted a bottom up method, that the working class themselves had to be at the head of the movement, not the vanguard, or the party elite.


Let us speak plainly. Historically, the errors committed by a truly revolutionary movement are infinitely more fruitful than the infallibility of the cleverest central committee.- Rosa Luxemburg, Organizational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy

[Savage]

^But wait a minute, wasn't it Luxemburg that said "The future everywhere belongs to Bolshevism"? And what about her understanding of the period of transition? She maintained the 2nd International position which is far more 'top down' than Lenin's position regarding the soviet regime as the dictatorship of the proletariat. For me (and probably quite a few other people) Luxemburg's most important contributions were in her works on Imperialism, the National Question etc, not her understanding of the transition to communism.

[Die Rote Fahne]

^But wait a minute, wasn't it Luxemburg that said "The future everywhere belongs to Bolshevism"? And what about her understanding of the period of transition? She maintained the 2nd International position which is far more 'top down' than Lenin's position regarding the soviet regime as the dictatorship of the proletariat. For me (and probably quite a few other people) Luxemburg's most important contributions were in her works on Imperialism, the National Question etc, not her understanding of the transition to communism.

Luxemburg was highly critical of the Bolshevik organization, they way they took and held power. Try reading Leninism or Marixism? or The Russian Revolution by Rosa.

She did praise their revolution. Of course she thought it a good thing. It "put socialism as the order of the day".

Taking bits and pieces of her original writings out of context is somewhat disingenuous.

[Zanthorus]

the centralization methods of Lenin,

This in itself should be a clear key to the weakness of Luxemburg's work. What does it mean to speak of the 'centralisation methods of Lenin'? The Mensheviks and Bolsheviks were in agreement on the role of the Central Committee. Lenin's talk of Jacobins occurs in his book 'One Step Forward, Two Steps Back', the content of which criticises the Mensheviks for violating internal party democracy. Have you read Lenin's reply to Luxemburg? Perhaps if you did (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1904/sep/15a.htm) you might learn something:


Rosa Luxemburg further says that “according to his [Lenin’s] conception, the Central Committee has the right to organize 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. I have never advocated any such view ... Comrade Rosa Luxemburg says ... that the whole controversy is over the degree of centralization. Actually that is not so. ... our controversy has principally been over whether the Central Committee and Central Organ should represent the trend of the majority of the Party Congress, or whether they should not. About this “ultra-centralist” and “purely Blanquist” demand the worthy comrade says not a word, she prefers to declaim against mechanical subordination of the part to the whole, against slavish submission, blind obedience, and other such bogeys. ... Comrade Luxemburg fathers on me the idea that all the conditions already exist in Russia for forming a large and extremely centralized workers’ party. Again an error of fact.

Isn't that interesting, Lenin denies what Luxemburg accuses him of on practically every point. Perhaps the two were closer than Luxemburg's dishonest polemic would lead us to believe.


In actuality she promoted a bottom up method,

Then can you explain why she supported the Social-Democratic Party of Germany, a highly centralised and bueraucratic apparatus if ever there was one? Can you explain why she supported the hyper-centralist Social-Democracy of the Kingdoms of Poland and Lithuania?


Try reading Leninism or Marixism?

The work is called 'Organisational Questions of the Russian Social-Democracy' not 'Leninism or Marxism?'.


Taking bits and pieces of her original writings out of context is somewhat disingenuous.

But that is what you yourself are doing.

[Die Rote Fahne]

This in itself should be a clear key to the weakness of Luxemburg's work. What does it mean to speak of the 'centralisation methods of Lenin'? The Mensheviks and Bolsheviks were in agreement on the role of the Central Committee. Lenin's talk of Jacobins occurs in his book 'One Step Forward, Two Steps Back', the content of which criticises the Mensheviks for violating internal party democracy. Have you read Lenin's reply to Luxemburg? Perhaps if you did (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1904/sep/15a.htm) you might learn something:



Isn't that interesting, Lenin denies what Luxemburg accuses him of on practically every point. Perhaps the two were closer than Luxemburg's dishonest polemic would lead us to believe.
Regardless, my point was of what she promoted, not whether her polemic was dishonest, or what Lenin "thought" about it. Of course Lenin would try to distance himself from any claim that he is ultra-centrist.

All Lenin did was make a statement of how he was right, and she was wrong. Luxemburg provided evidence and discourse.



Then can you explain why she supported the Social-Democratic Party of Germany, a highly centralised and bueraucratic apparatus if ever there was one? Can you explain why she supported the hyper-centralist Social-Democracy of the Kingdoms of Poland and Lithuania?Let me clear up something, in case you misunderstand: Social Democracy, back then, referred to Revolutionary Socialism. Just making sure you know that.

They were the Marxist parties of the time. It's not like they were the only parties she has ever supported, or she was so supportive of everything they did.

Wake up, I support a literal Social Democratic party where I live, why? Because they are the farthest left party I can actually support where I live.



The work is called 'Organisational Questions of the Russian Social-Democracy' not 'Leninism or Marxism?'.Yes, that is what she titled the work. It is most commonly known in english as 'Leninism or Marxism?'. Another title that is used is 'Revolutionary Socialist Organization'.

Whatever title I choose is irrelevant, and a non-issue.



But that is what you yourself are doing.I'm keeping the bits in context. I have a copy of 'Leninism or Marxism? and The Russian Revolution' in my hands right now.

[black magick hustla]

Her critique of the Russian Revolution is largely correct, but it isn't similar to the critique of left communists and council communists (if we really need to stamp a label into her, she would seem more like a "right communist" than a "left communist").



i think you are on something here. rosa was never able to break fully with social democracy, which is why she appeals to so many anarchists, who seemed to be obsessed with democratic slogans. her take on the national question and imperialism are spot on though.

[Die Rote Fahne]

i think you are on something here. rosa was never able to break fully with social democracy, which is why she appeals to so many anarchists, who seemed to be obsessed with democratic slogans. her take on the national question and imperialism are spot on though.
I'm sure you know, but I have to check, even I made this mistake when I started reading Rosa. You know that Social Democracy, in her time, referred to revolutionary socialism, right?

She never rejected a party involved in the revolution, nor a transitional phase. She obviously supported it. So there is an obvious break with the anarchists, because she remains a Marxist through and through. More orthodox a Marxist than Lenin, Trotsky or any other famous revolutionary I can think of right now.

I want to know how the support of elections, freedom of speech, etc. made her a "right communist".

What she predicted of the organizational methods of the Bolsheviks came true. It didn't work. The authoritarianism of the party, the ultra-centralism, it all led to the demise of Russian Social Democracy (I use the term to mean revolutionary socialism here).

[Zanthorus]

All Lenin did was make a statement of how he was right, and she was wrong.

You seem to be incapable of reading. The point of Lenin's reply is not that he was right and Luxemburg wrong, but rather that Luxemburg had completely misunderstood the point of his book.


Let me clear up something, in case you misunderstand: Social Democracy, back then, referred to Revolutionary Socialism. Just making sure you know that.

Please don't patronise me, I know damn well what 'Social Democracy' referred to prior to 1914. It referred to the parties of the Second International which claimed to be revolutionary Marxist parties. That, however, is an incredibly debatable point.


They were the Marxist parties of the time. It's not like they were the only parties she has ever supported, or she was so supportive of everything they did.

Except that Luxemburg like most of the Left of the Social-Democratic movement supported a greater centralisation of the party to combat the revisionist virus. She explicitly states this in 'Organisational Questions...'. You keep dodging it but the fact is that Luxemburg supported highly centralised party organisations openly.


I'm keeping the bits in context. I have a copy of 'Leninism or Marxism? and The Russian Revolution' in my hands right now.

Keeping something in context does not consist in simply reading a text. It also means examining the situation in which a piece was written, the authors motives in writing the text, the practical purpose which it was intended to achieve and so on. For example, one important thing about the context of Luxemburg's book is that she was a defender of the SDKPil, which under Lenin's opposition to localism, would've been incorporated into the RSDLP. It is possible to see Luxemburg's work in part as a defence of the SDKPil's organisational autonomy.

[Die Rote Fahne]

You seem to be incapable of reading. The point of Lenin's reply is not that he was right and Luxemburg wrong, but rather that Luxemburg had completely misunderstood the point of his book.
I disagree that she misunderstood anything. Simple as that. It's very clearly laid out.


Please don't patronise me, I know damn well what 'Social Democracy' referred to prior to 1914. It referred to the parties of the Second International which claimed to be revolutionary Marxist parties. That, however, is an incredibly debatable point.Wasn't the intention, take a Valium and chill the fuck out.

And it was revolutionary, regardless of what you think.


Except that Luxemburg like most of the Left of the Social-Democratic movement supported a greater centralisation of the party to combat the revisionist virus. She explicitly states this in 'Organisational Questions...'. You keep dodging it but the fact is that Luxemburg supported highly centralised party organisations openly.Supporting a "greater centralization", is not supporting an ultra centralization, and only to combat revisionists, not as the method of revolution or organization of the class struggle.



Keeping something in context does not consist in simply reading a text. It also means examining the situation in which a piece was written, the authors motives in writing the text, the practical purpose which it was intended to achieve and so on. For example, one important thing about the context of Luxemburg's book is that she was a defender of the SDKPil, which under Lenin's opposition to localism, would've been incorporated into the RSDLP. It is possible to see Luxemburg's work in part as a defence of the SDKPil's organisational autonomy.I keep it in context.

Maybe we should discuss how Luxemburg's principles were not pushed by the party she headed? The party which wanted her to be a leader had been "Russified" into following a more Leninist platform, one which she did not want. She was outvoted by her party. (Spartacus League). Being a member, or even a leader, in a party does not mean you support everything the party does. Nor that the party does everything you believe correct. She wanted the Spartacans to contest the elections, the party outvoted her. Should we define Trotsky by his support of the Mensheviks, then his support of the Bolsheviks, or should we take his views, and not his party's views, to account?

We can see she was right. How? Look at what happened to the Russian Social Democracy.

The SDKPiL was concerned with maintaining its own autonomy within the party as a whole and with the removal of recognition of the Right to Self Determination from the party’s program. As well, they opposed the "Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasantry". To claim that is was solely localism is ridiculous.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Keeping something in context does not consist in simply reading a text. It also means examining the situation in which a piece was written, the authors motives in writing the text, the practical purpose which it was intended to achieve and so on. For example, one important thing about the context of Luxemburg's book is that she was a defender of the SDKPil, which under Lenin's opposition to localism, would've been incorporated into the RSDLP. It is possible to see Luxemburg's work in part as a defence of the SDKPil's organisational autonomy.

Luxemburg ultimately was a defender of sectarianism in Congress Poland and the Vilna Governorate (Lithuania). An RSDLP spanning the entire Russian empire could have staved off Polish and Baltic bourgeois aspirations for independence.

[Kiev Communard]

It is quite telling that both she and the renegade Kautsky criticized the Bolsheviks for all the wrong reasons. For all things "not turning necessity into virtue" or defense of the discredited Constituent Assembly, neither they nor those closest to their political positions condemned the Bolshevik coups d'etat of 1918 (thugs shutting down soviets which returned Left-SR and Menshevik-Internationalist majorities).

Well, if I remember correctly, Kautsky viewed soviets as mere "syndicalist" deviation that stood in the way of supposedly true and pure way to socialism through legalistic parliamentary majority.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, if I remember correctly, Kautsky viewed soviets as mere "syndicalist" deviation that stood in the way of supposedly true and pure way to socialism through legalistic parliamentary majority.

Comrade, Kautsky was a renegade by that time. When said "both she and the renegade," I implied that practically nobody with roots in pre-war German Social Democracy and nobody in Independent Social Democracy (USPD) criticized the events of 1918. Remember: Luxemburg herself was still alive in early to mid 1918.

BTW, I'd like your thoughts on this in the link:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-power-independent-t155105/index.html

[Savage]

Luxemburg was highly critical of the Bolshevik organization, they way they took and held power. Try reading Leninism or Marixism? or The Russian Revolution by Rosa.

She did praise their revolution. Of course she thought it a good thing. It "put socialism as the order of the day".

Taking bits and pieces of her original writings out of context is somewhat disingenuous.

And she was also critical of the soviet organs themselves, to the point that most people would dispel the idea of her being some 'libertarian heroine'.

[Die Rote Fahne]

And she was also critical of the soviet organs themselves, to the point that most people would dispel the idea of her being some 'libertarian heroine'.
Perhaps you could provide specifics?

[Luís Henrique]

i think you are on something here. rosa was never able to break fully with social democracy, which is why she appeals to so many anarchists, who seemed to be obsessed with democratic slogans. her take on the national question and imperialism are spot on though.

To be clear, I don't think being a "right Communist" is a bad thing. Indeed, should I describe myself in some stereotypical way, "right Communist" would probably be my choice.

She was right in defending internal democracy, she was right in sticking to the reformist working class party as long as possible, she was right in condemning overcentralisation and "democratic centralism", she was right in supporting electoral participation by communists. If those things make her a "right Communist", then "right communism" is probably the way to go.

But actually I only used the term to strictly demarcate her positions from "left Communism". She had nothing to do with "left Communism" or "council Communism", and I find the attempts by those to paint her as an adherent to their theories disingenuous at best.

Luís Henrique

[Devrim]

But actually I only used the term to strictly demarcate her positions from "left Communism". She had nothing to do with "left Communism" or "council Communism", and I find the attempts by those to paint her as an adherent to their theories disingenuous at best.

As Luís states Luxemburg was not a left or council communist. However, there was a deep 'Luxemburgist' influence on those currents particularly in economics and theories of imperialism.

Devrim

[Die Rote Fahne]

To be clear, I don't think being a "right Communist" is a bad thing. Indeed, should I describe myself in some stereotypical way, "right Communist" would probably be my choice.

She was right in defending internal democracy, she was right in sticking to the reformist working class party as long as possible, she was right in condemning overcentralisation and "democratic centralism", she was right in supporting electoral participation by communists. If those things make her a "right Communist", then "right communism" is probably the way to go.

But actually I only used the term to strictly demarcate her positions from "left Communism". She had nothing to do with "left Communism" or "council Communism", and I find the attempts by those to paint her as an adherent to their theories disingenuous at best.

Luís Henrique

Without going in-depth, "orthodox marxist" would be the appropriate title.

[Proukunin]

Did she believe in the DOTP?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Did she believe in the DOTP?
Yes. However, she interpreted it as non-literal dictatorship. Where free general elections could take place for the workers to choose their socialist program/party of preference.

[Luís Henrique]

Without going in-depth, "orthodox marxist" would be the appropriate title.

Perhaps, but the Lukacsian reverberations of such phrase aren't too much agreeable.

How about "Marxist", without prefixes or suffixes?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Did she believe in the DOTP?

She believed in a dictatorship of the proletariat - meaning the whole working class, the whole proletariat, being the "dictator", the ruling class. In a similar sence than when we say that a bourgeois democracy is a dictatorship of the bourgeosie. Not in the vulgar, stalinist sence, in which it is used to justify political police, torture, suppression of working class organisation, elimination of civil or political rights, stakhanovism, etc., ie, a dictatorship of a few in the name of the proletariat.

Luís Henrique

[Rowan Duffy]

Except that Luxemburg like most of the Left of the Social-Democratic movement supported a greater centralisation of the party to combat the revisionist virus. She explicitly states this in 'Organisational Questions...'. You keep dodging it but the fact is that Luxemburg supported highly centralised party organisations openly.

This is misleading because it confuses at least two separate issues. The question of federalism or unitary organisation - and the question of hierarchical control or democratic control. The word centralisation is being used simultaneously and incoherently with two different meanings in some ad-mixture apparent only to the speaker of the word.

One use of centralisation is in opposition to federalism. That is that there should be a unitary body as opposed to one which is localist and in federation.

Federalism in the SPD context was being pushed by the Bavarians who were not just revisionists but out-and-out reformists, and would liked to have acted in the Reichstag under the aegis of the SPD while also voting on budgets and passing legislation in the interest of their constituents. This was in clear contrast to the traditional stance of "pure opposition".

These rural Bavarian parlimentarians were also given their seats with vastly less constituency due to peculiarities of districting. They pushed federalism by various means within the party, including pushing the creation of a federal region-based organ.

The antipathy of the left in the SPD to federalism has to be viewed in this context. Clearly this form of federalism represents the worst kind of localism - one both reformist and playing at being in a revolutionary organisation while also being totally undemocratic and flouting the majority and the core militants of the socialist organisation. It was toxic and needed to be excised.

As it later turned out, creating a large scale unitary party by way of centralisation ended up giving increasing control to an executive which would later be a drag on the more revolutionary elements in the party. I think this leads to the important question for the working class, which is how to create democratic unitary organisations (I believe this holds true for mass-party adherents and syndicalists).

Centralisation of the trade unions had taken place gradually in the 1890s leading to the possibilities of rolling strikes, which improved the conditions of workers tremendously. Essentially the trade unions would strike in one locality and pay for the strike with funds from elsewhere. This centralisation provided a new weapon against the employers, but also meant that strictly local unions were at some disadvantage, leading to a big push towards centralisation. The more local approach was just not feasible when contrasted with the superior fire-power of centralisation.

Here we have the rise of a trade union bureaucracy with tremendous power, and one that eventually becomes more conservative than the workers themselves as we see in 1905 when they attempt to put the breaks on a wave of wild-cat strikes.

It should be remembered that Luxemburg (and to some extent Kautsky) was not dogmatically a centralist and would later support vocally breakaway locals and wildcats when there was an up-tick in radicalism in 1905.

However, we have another example of the problems of federalism occurring in 1907 with respect to May-Day funding in the labour unions. The trade unions insisted that the funding for problems encountered by workers during the annual may-day strike be done federally, where each local was responsible for the problems in that locality. This change of policy essentially killed the annual may-day strike.

I think we need to make a conscious effort to disentangle the beneficial and deleterious aspects of centralisation and avoid conflation of centralisation with top-down as opposed to democratic control. Federalism can be vastly less democratic than centralism depending on what the particulars of the context are.