Rosa on Reform

[Servia]

I am a little confused about what Rosa Luxemburg sees the way forward to be. She is clearly against the reformism of social democrats, but I have also read that she wasn't opposed to parliamentary participation.

[RedQuarks]

I would imagine you too are currently reading Luxemburg's "Reform or Revolution." Now, as I am currently reading it I may not be the most qualified, but I have a solid understanding of what I have read and have heard much discussion about her philosophy. Her primary criticism of reformists and revisionists was that they believed capitalism could hold itself together, some asserting it always would. Many of these people, such as social democrats thought that reform could gradually move capitalism into socialism, never taking into account the many crises similar to the 2008 crash that had occurred and that capitalists had barely pulled their rule together after. Luxemburg, however, thought that workers could use council type rule to organize and meet their needs. The basis of her belief is that reformists believe in a gradual transition to socialism by allowing gradual reform, which defies all reason. Instead, she advocated revolution. From what I am told, her beliefs in councils and parliamentary rule came from her concerns about Leninist-Marxism and Bolshevism. She didn't envision parliament type setups as a function of arbitrary representatives but rather as a method of meeting needs. I will have to read more, but that is what I can clarify from my readings. Best of luck comrade.

[Hatshepsut]

In one word, basically the mass strike. She exhorted workers to strike against German participation in World War I, and was imprisoned two years for doing so. And murdered not long after that. The following may best characterize her "early" positions:

Luxemburg 1899-Reform or Revolution
http://www.swp.org.uk/sites/all/files/pamphlets/3_revolutionary-classics-course_reform-or-revolution.pdf

Although Bernstein's predictions of a rising "middle class" amid diversification of capitalism have borne out over time. It is less likely that reformism or defeatism in the socialist camps has retarded a further revolution, than that the working class in the rich countries stands more or less self-satisfied amid cars and consumerism. While the rich countries can marginalize or crush working-class upheaval in the poorer lands at will. The latter fact is so well-acknowledged now that in Venezuela and Bolivia, the USA didn't even bother with the coup d'etat it used to favor whenever a Latin American nation got a Marxist president. Instead, nice businessmen jet down to La Paz to ply Mr. Morales with wine and song, allowing investors to maintain a fiction of value in their now-worthless water company securities.

Some things do seem to be changing. The USA experiences more difficulty gaining international support for its imperialistic wars than it once did. It hasn't been able to counter the trend toward footloose corporations which move assets about in utter disregard for national policies. Meaning the tax base subsidizing "middle class" welfare statism is eroding steadily as costs rise and rise.

Edit: Sorry; I didn't see Luxemburg's R or R was already cited just above me. :)

[ComradeAllende]

Although Bernstein's predictions of a rising "middle class" amid diversificaIt is less likely that reformism or defeatism in the socialist camps has retarded a further revolution, than that the working class in the rich countries stands more or less self-satisfied amid cars and consumerism. While the rich countries can marginalize or crush working-class upheaval in the poorer lands at will. The latter fact is so well-acknowledged now that in Venezuela and Bolivia, the USA didn't even bother with the coup d'etat it used to favor whenever a Latin American nation got a Marxist president. Instead, nice businessmen jet down to La Paz to ply Mr. Morales with wine and song, allowing investors to maintain a fiction of value in their now-worthless water company securities.

I wouldn't argue that the First World's working class is "self-satisfied," mainly because the past 30 years have seen a withering attack on the (reformist) victories of working-class struggle, whether it be the welfare state, the labor movement, or the concept of "progressive taxation" (a concept under attack for its "Marxist" influence). Maybe during the postwar years there was a general reluctance towards revolution, but nowadays the weakness of radical movements is rooted in the demise of the Soviet Union and the marketization of China. For all it's totalitarian atrocities and theoretical vulgarism, the USSR was perceived as the ultimate symbol of the socialist movement and workers' power. When it fell, the word "socialism" became an anachronism for working-class groups across the world, as they lost the ability to articulate an alternative to capitalism. There is plenty of pent-up discontent with the capitalist system; the workers of the rich world just don't have an alternative to fight for.


Some things do seem to be changing. The USA experiences more difficulty gaining international support for its imperialistic wars than it once did. It hasn't been able to counter the trend toward footloose corporations which move assets about in utter disregard for national policies. Meaning the tax base subsidizing "middle class" welfare statism is eroding steadily as costs rise and rise.

We must remain cautious about these trends, however; there is no guarantee that the fall of the welfare state will expose capitalism's flaws. Equally plausible is the possibility of a right-wing counter revolution, be it in the form of traditional fascists (Golden Dawn, Jobbik) or far-right demagoguery and nativism (Donald Trump, UKIP, etc).

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I am a little confused about what Rosa Luxemburg sees the way forward to be. She is clearly against the reformism of social democrats, but I have also read that she wasn't opposed to parliamentary participation.
Reformists believe that it is possible to create socialism using bourgeois parliament but Rosa recognised, like most other Marxists, that the bourgeoisie is never going to let you just 'vote' away their wealth and property. The only way to achieve socialism would be revolution, hence her polemic against Bernstein in 'Reform or Revolution'. However, revolutionaries shouldn't be afraid of utilising bourgeois institutions to defend workers, disrupt the capitalists' attempts to crush organisations and advance basic improvements to people's lives whilst preparing for the ultimate push to end the system of capitalism altogether.

[LeninistIthink]

Lenin was also not opposed to parliamentary work. Running for parliament and getting a few seats=/= saying revolution is not the answer.

[Hatshepsut]

When [the East Bloc] fell, the word "socialism" became an anachronism for working-class groups across the world, as they lost the ability to articulate an alternative to capitalism. There is plenty of pent-up discontent with the capitalist system...

True enough that contentment with the current system by 80% of America's workforce probably won't last forever. The bourgeoisie in the USA have pumped its consumer society into spending beyond its means precisely to smother class antagonisms. In other words, I think Bernstein's predictions were good up to now but that they are becoming "less good" as time goes by, because of capitalism's acceleration features that render it unstable. For we not only have the short-term fluctuations that Keynesian economic planning supposedly "cured," but its long-term unsustainability.

If demagoguery prevails we'll have a rough ride. Fascist systems usually eat themselves up as well, however. I can see that the old terms "socialism" and "communism" may have to drop from the vocabulary because of the negative connotations they've accumulated. But similar concepts will come back under new names if that happens, provided that historical materialism is valid.

[Sharia Lawn]

In other words, I think Bernstein's predictions were good up to now but that they are becoming "less good" as time goes by, because of capitalism's acceleration features that render it unstable.

Which predictions are these?

[Sharia Lawn]

I am a little confused about what Rosa Luxemburg sees the way forward to be. She is clearly against the reformism of social democrats, but I have also read that she wasn't opposed to parliamentary participation.

Servia, Rosa wrote the pamphlet Reform or Revolution to combat Bernstein's revisionist ideas that capitalism had transcended crisis and that workers could use the capitalist state to transition peacefully to socialism in a process that roughly paralleled the supposedly more widespread ownership of stock in monopoly firms (part of what Bernstein thought insulated capitalism from crisis).

She did this by reiterating the classical Marxist understanding of reforms as a means of stimulating class consciousness, against ultra-left ideas that any reforms are a sell-out to the struggle for revolution, but mostly against Bernstein's ideas that fighting for reforms alone will be enough to transition to socialism, as a revolution was supposedly no longer necessary.

Rosa also had the classical Marxist understanding of participation in parliaments. You participate to spread revolutionary propaganda and to register how much strength of support that propaganda has. You don't do it for the purpose of trying to become the manager of the bourgeois state. What this means is that you run, perhaps even win and serve in parliament. But you don't have illusions about what is possible in the parliament, and you certainly don't tailor your strategy around winning the parliament.

Somebody above mentioned the mass strike, a tactic that Rosa did emphasize. The larger point, though, is that Rosa affirmed working-class struggle outside parliament as the driving force of revolutionary progress.

[Servia]

Workers could not seize control of the parliament and implement radical changes to socialism, in her view? Why is that not possible?

[LeninistIthink]

Workers could not seize control of the parliament and implement radical changes to socialism, in her view? Why is that not possible?

because the capitalist state is a means for capitalist rule, not only does that mean the workers can't simply just take over parliament after a revolution and use all the old tools for the workers, it also means the workers can't get control of the state legally and inside the capitalist parliament, imagine it like a club with entry requirements, tools to restrict those not meeting entry and only those meeting entry requirements can be the heads of the club. Someone not meeting those requirements and arguing to change the very basis of the club will have a very hard time with only legal methods

[ComradeAllende]

True enough that contentment with the current system by 80% of America's workforce probably won't last forever. The bourgeoisie in the USA have pumped its consumer society into spending beyond its means precisely to smother class antagonisms. In other words, I think Bernstein's predictions were good up to now but that they are becoming "less good" as time goes by, because of capitalism's acceleration features that render it unstable. For we not only have the short-term fluctuations that Keynesian economic planning supposedly "cured," but its long-term unsustainability.

To be fair, the bourgeoisie had a much easier job of papering over class antagonisms here in the good ol' US of A than in, say, Germany or France. The prevailing ideology of feel-good American Dream-ism is very alluring, both to the proletariat and to prospective radicals. Whereas in Europe, workers had a much clearer history of class conflict and needed to be lined up against each other in a major war to pacify (enter in World War I).


TrueIf demagoguery prevails we'll have a rough ride. Fascist systems usually eat themselves up as well, however. I can see that the old terms "socialism" and "communism" may have to drop from the vocabulary because of the negative connotations they've accumulated. But similar concepts will come back under new names if that happens, provided that historical materialism is valid.

Again, I'd be careful with assumptions, especially about fascism. Fascists are an innovative lot, and they don't all pledge allegiance to Hitler or the "Aryan Race." Many of them probably have ancestors who fought against Hitler in World War II, and so they glorify them (the Greatest Generation) as the "Ubermensch" who we should look to as role models.

[Hatshepsut]

...they glorify them (the Greatest Generation) as the "Ubermensch" who we should look to as role models.


“The capacity of capitalism to adapt itself, says Bernstein, is manifested first in the disappearance of general crises, resulting from the development of the credit system, employers’ organisations, wider means of communication and informational services. It shows itself secondly in the tenacity of the middle classes, which hails from the growing differentiation of the branches of production and the elevation of vast layers of the proletariat to the level of the middle class” (R & R, para. 6).

Striking, that someone was already thinking this by 1895—an endless optimism in capitalism, if you will.


...they glorify them (the Greatest Generation) as the "Ubermensch" who we should look to as role models.

If I’ve understood the allusion correctly, should Americans from the Ronald Reagan and Bush Dynasty crowds really be called fascists, however? There is a specific definition for that term and America is pointedly not a fascist country—it’s been a bourgeois imperialist republic with two parties from the start without deviating from that line.

Although a Nietzsche angle is interesting. The übermenschen are apparently learning to make do with cat naps. For business success, a polyphasic formula for dispensing with need to sleep:

http://www.businessinsider.com/polyphasic-sleep-schedules-and-enefits-2013-10

Perverse and irrational psychological factors in capitalism tend to be underrated. The financial crisis of 2008 began with innuendo on the side about subprime mortgages nonbusiness publics first heard in August 2007. The minute this disquieting tidbit came on investors’ radar screens was when CNN began talking about a downturn. In July, everything had been fine. Oddly, there’s even a candidate for the random signal event: The collapse of a major highway bridge into the Mississippi River in Minneapolis on Aug. 1, 2007, which killed 13 people and closed the road for a year.