Rosa Luxemburg attacks the Bolsheviks

[The Feral Underclass]

Democracy and Dictatorship by Rosa Luxemburg

The basic error of the Lenin-Trotsky theory is that they too, just like Kautsky, oppose dictatorship to democracy. "Dictatorship or democracy" is the way the question is put by Bolsheviks and Kautsky alike. The latter naturally decides in favor of "democracy," that is, of bourgeois democracy, precisely because he opposes it to the alternative of the socialist revolution. Lenin and Trotsky, on the other hand, decide in favor of dictatorship in contradistinction to democracy, and thereby, in favor of the dictatorship of a handful of persons, that is, in favor of dictatorship on the bourgeois model. They are two opposite poles, both alike being far removed from a genuine socialist policy. The proletariat, when it seizes power, can never follow the good advice of Kautsky, given on the pretext of the "unripeness of the country," the advice being to renounce socialist revolution and devote itself to democracy. It cannot follow this advice without betraying thereby itself, the International, and the revolution. It should and must at once undertake socialist measures in the most energetic, unyielding and unhesitant fashion, in other words, exercise a dictatorship, but a dictatorship of the class, not of a party or of a clique -- dictatorship of the class, that means in the broadest possible form on the basis of the most active, unlimited participation of the mass of the people, of unlimited democracy.

"As Marxists," writes Trotsky, "we have never been idol worshippers of formal democracy." Surely, we have never been idol worshippers of socialism or Marxism either. Does it follow from this that we may throw socialism on the scrap-heap, a la Cunow, Lensch and Parvus [i.e. Move to the right], if it becomes uncomfortable for us? Trotsky and Lenin are the living refutation of this answer.

"We have never been idol-worshippers of formal democracy." All that that really means is: We have always distinguished the social kernel from the political form of bourgeois democracy; we have always revealed the hard kernel of social inequality and lack of freedom hidden under the sweet shell of formal equality and freedom -- not in order to reject the latter but to spur the working class into not being satisfied with the shell, but rather, by conquering political power, to create a socialist democracy to replace bourgeois democracy -- not to eliminate democracy altogether.

But socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class -- that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.

Doubtless the Bolsheviks would have proceeded in this very way were it not that they suffered under the frightful compulsion of the world war, the German occupation and all the abnormal difficulties connected therewith, things which were inevitably bound to distort any socialist policy, however imbued it might be with the best intentions and the finest principles.

A crude proof of this is provided by the use of terror to so wide an extent by the Soviet government, especially in the most recent period just before the collapse of German imperialism, and just after the attempt on the life of the German ambassador. The commonplace to the effect that revolutions are not pink teas is in itself pretty inadequate.

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

Let the German Government Socialists cry that the rule of the Bolsheviks in Russia is a distorted expression of the dictatorship of the proletariat. If it was or is such, that is only because it is a product of the behavior of the German proletariat, in itself a distorted expression of the socialist class struggle. All of us are subject to the laws of history, and it is only internationally that the socialist order of society can be realized. The Bolsheviks have shown that they are capable of everything that a genuine revolutionary party can contribute within the limits of historical possibilities. They are not supposed to perform miracles. For a model and faultless proletarian revolution in an isolated land, exhausted by world war, strangled by imperialism, betrayed by the international proletariat, would be a miracle.

What is in order is to distinguish the essential from the non-essential, the kernel from the accidental excrescencies in the politics of the Bolsheviks. In the present period, when we face decisive final struggles in all the world, the most important problem of socialism was and is the burning question of our time. It is not a matter of this or that secondary question of tactics, but of the capacity for action of the proletariat, the strength to act, the will to power of socialism as such. In this, Lenin and Trotsky and their friends were the first, those who went ahead as an example to the proletariat of the world; they are still the only ones up to now who can cry with Hutten: "I have dared!"

This is the essential and enduring in Bolshevik policy. In this sense theirs is the immortal historical service of having marched at the head of the international proletariat with the conquest of political power and the practical placing of the problem of the realization of socialism, and of having advanced mightily the settlement of the score between capital and labor in the entire world. In Russia, the problem could only be posed. It could not be solved in Russia. And in this sense, the future everywhere belongs to "Bolshevism."

Democracy and Dictatorship - Rosa Luxemburg (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch08.htm)

[pandora]

:P Thank you for printing this, bump

[Severian]

Kinda misleading thread title....

Rosa Luxemburg wrote:

By their determined revolutionary stand, their exemplary strength in action, and their unbreakable loyalty to international socialism, they have contributed whatever could possibly be contributed under such devilishly hard conditions. The danger begins only when they make a virtue of necessity and want to freeze into a complete theoretical system all the tactics forced upon them by these fatal circumstances, and want to recommend them to the international proletariat as a model of socialist tactics.

She's expressing a disagreement with the Bolsheviks, not "attacking" them. The disagreement is not with their actions, which she agrees were necessary under the circumstances, but with making a virture out of a necessity. And even this disagreement was in an article she did not intend for publication.

I think it's not a particularly fair criticism; the Bolshevik leaders were, I think, fully aware of the points she was raising...but also fully aware that other revolutions were likely to face difficult conditions at first, and would in most cases also need ruthlessness to deal with armed counterrevolution.

They were also aware that they had suffered due excessive mercy early on...Lenin had advocated ruthlessness from the beginning, but most Bolshevik supporters had to learn its necessity the hard way. During and shortly after the October insurrection, those who had taken up arms against the Soviet forces were released...if they promised not to do it again.

As Machiavelli once wrote: "Whence it is to be noted that in taking possession of a state the conqueror should well reflect as to the harsh measures that may be necessary, and then execute them at a single blow, so as not to be obliged to renew them every day, and by thus not repeating them, to assure himself of the support of the inhabitants, and win them over to himself by benefits bestowed. And he who acts otherwise, either from timidity or from being badly advised, will be obliged ever to be sword in hand, and will never be able to rely upon his subjects, who in turn will not be able to rely upon him, because of the constant fresh wrongs committed by him." The history of the Cuban Revolution is a good example of this...upon first taking power, it carried out a harsh series of summary trials and executions of the Batista regime's murderers and torturers, and has been able to proceed with relative mercy and mildness ever since.

The passage quoted is from the end of a larger article titled "The Russian Revolution"...in the bulk of the article Rosa Luxemburg argues against the Bolshevik policy of distributing land to the peasants, and against their support for national self-determination. I think she was wrong on both of those as well.

(She did make one good criticism of something Lenin said in "What is to be Done"...he had said that workers learned discipline in the factory, and she correctly pointed out that what we learn on the job is to obey - for as long as the boss is watching, but we'll do something else anytime we can get away with it. What we learn and need in the workers' movement is voluntary, proletarian self-discipline, where we carry out decisions because we know it needs to be done...even if you don't agree with a particular decision, knowing that it's necessary that the majority vote be respected. Just like everyone walks out on strike when the majority votes to, and doesn't cross the picket line until the majority vote to take it down...the distinction between the two kinds of discipline, and where we learn them, is an important point, and Luxemburg was right against Lenin on it.)

In any case, for anarchists and other opponents of the early Soviet government to claim Rosa Luxemburg as one of their own, is an act of political grave robbery...

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't know alot about Rosa Luxemburg, I just found this article very amusing. She quite clearly lays out her opposition to the leninist trend, which is irnoic, as most Leninist parties do exactly that, "political grave robbery," by elevating her as some kind of Leninist icon, when in fact she wasn't, or more aptly, isn't.

[Severian]

She was a communist leader, however.

[BOZG]

I think Severian has said what I'd like to say far more clearly. I think he's incredibly spot on with the "politcal grave robbery" comment, which the anarchists and anti-Leninists do on a regular basis. Rosa was neither a Leninist nor an Anarchist as 'some' would like to believe. Yes she had many disagreements with the Bolsheviks, she had reservations about the role of the revolutionary party but nonetheless she still gave massive critical support to the Bolsheviks and understood that many of the authoritarian measures taken at the time were a necessity to defeat counterrevolution in Russia. I think Severian understates his point about the title being misleading. Leninists do not try and claim Rosa as one of their own but rather as a 'devout' Marxist and a revolutionary to the core. People should also take note that she was in no way a feminist, but a simple Marxist.

As for her position on the right to self-determination, I think there is a valid point to some extent. There is a significant danger that many so called international socialists can create too much emphasis on the national question being solved through the right of self-determination and losing sight of internationalism in their programme. This point cannot be rejected, the right of self-determination must be interwined with the points of internationalism. I also understand her points about the national bourgeoisie but I think Rosa was incorrect to completely reject self-determination on a general basis. There are situations where the national aspirations of a population cannot be ignored, in situations where a revolutionary consciousness is not developed. Self-determination must remain a transitional demand though on the road to developing an international, revolutionary, socalist consciousness. I would agree with the rejection of the right to self-determination under revolutionary socialist conditions. In such circumstances, a call for self-determination is a rejection of internationalism.

[The Feral Underclass]

I do not believe she was an anarchist, and the thread was no intention of me stealing anyones grave. I would have problems if people attempted to call her an anarchist.

[BOZG]

Yeah I know, but anarchists are as guilty of trying to make her one of their own as Leninists supposedly do.

[The Feral Underclass]

Never seen it meself...

[Severian]

I've seen social democrats describe her as a "democratic socialist"...especially ironic as they ordered her death.

And there's a general tendency, from a number of anti-October Revolution, anti-early Soviet government trends, to represent her as sharing that view. She is most commonly quoted in her criticisms of the Bolsheviks...everything else she ever wrote is usually forgotten.

She is very rarely described as a communist, even though she was a leader of the German Communist Party and Communist International.

About the "feminist" thing...Rosa Luxemburg never wrote anything specifically on women's liberation...possibly because she feared being ghettoized by the Social-Democratic leadership into dealing only with the women's organization, as Clara Zetkin was.

But I think the traditional Marxist position on women's liberation is feminist...in the broad sense, that any tendency that fights for equality for women is feminist.

[redstar2000]

How odd it is to see a "communist" quote Machiavelli...


Whence it is to be noted that in taking possession of a state the conqueror should well reflect as to the harsh measures that may be necessary, and then execute them at a single blow, so as not to be obliged to renew them every day, and by thus not repeating them, to assure himself of the support of the inhabitants, and win them over to himself by benefits bestowed. And he who acts otherwise, either from timidity or from being badly advised, will be obliged ever to be sword in hand, and will never be able to rely upon his subjects, who in turn will not be able to rely upon him, because of the constant fresh wrongs committed by him.

Severian, the "prince of the proletariat"? :lol:

All nonsense, of course, with regard to proletarian revolution and its consequences. Communism is not a "bestowed benefit" of a "conqueror" and there will be no role for "proletarian princes".

As to the unseemly tussle over Luxemburg's remains...what can be said to the credit of anyone who engages in that sort of thing?

She was writing in 1918 when reliable information from Russia was terribly hard to come by (even within Russia itself, much less in Germany). Her ideas of what should have been done, what were "excusable errors", what were "inexcusable blunders", etc. were all affected by partial and even inaccurate information.

Also she was writing at a time when the "prestige" of the Bolsheviks was "sky high" among revolutionaries in every country. In a calmer moment, her criticisms might have been much more thorough.

Had she lived another decade or two, I think she would have much more of interest to say on the matter.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 07:23 PM
How odd it is to see a "communist" quote Machiavelli...
Why? Machiavelli was part of the bourgeois revolutionary forces in Italy at the time. He favored a republic - which comes through clearly in his "Discourses" as well as in his service to the Florence republic. In the "Prince" he was angling for a job with a monarch, partly out of hope that a monarch could help unify Italy, which was part of the tasks of the bourgeois revolution. Even in the "Prince' he commented that the prince must side either with the nobles or the people, and recommended the people, as the nobles want to oppress the people and the people want only not to be oppressed.

The passage I quoted is, among other things, a fair summation of the experience of revolutions up to that time, which Machiavelli had studied carefully. The experience of revolutions since also supports it.

I'll take a thoughtful, knowledgeable bourgeois revolutionary like Machiavelli - in the context of his time - over your aggressive, pigheaded, deliberate ignorance, any day.


As to the unseemly tussle over Luxemburg's remains...what can be said to the credit of anyone who engages in that sort of thing?

She was writing in 1918 when reliable information from Russia was terribly hard to come by (even within Russia itself, much less in Germany). Her ideas of what should have been done, what were "excusable errors", what were "inexcusable blunders", etc. were all affected by partial and even inaccurate information.

Also she was writing at a time when the "prestige" of the Bolsheviks was "sky high" among revolutionaries in every country. As to the unseemly tussle over Luxemburg's remains...what can be said to the credit of anyone who engages in that sort of thing?

She was writing in 1918 when reliable information from Russia was terribly hard to come by (even within Russia itself, much less in Germany). Her ideas of what should have been done, what were "excusable errors", what were "inexcusable blunders", etc. were all affected by partial and even inaccurate information.

Also she was writing at a time when the "prestige" of the Bolsheviks was "sky high" among revolutionaries in every country. In a calmer moment, her criticisms might have been much more thorough.Had she lived another decade or two, I think she would have much more of interest to say on the matter.


How do you know? Did you hold a seance and ask her ghost's opinion?

This kind of "what if" is completely unknowable and is basically a form of mental masturbation. Like physical masturbation, it's best practiced in private.

If you don't intend to discuss the article Luxemburg actually wrote, why are you even posting in this thread? That is the subject, y'know. Read the first post in the thread if you don't believe me.

[redstar2000]

I'll take a thoughtful, knowledgeable bourgeois revolutionary like Machiavelli - in the context of his time - over your aggressive, pigheaded, deliberate ignorance, any day.

Of course you will, your highness (or is it your excellency?).

Machiavelli speaks to your own desire to rule.

Leninist-Trotskyist princes like yourself are well advised to consider Machiavelli's advice useful. You don't want your "proletarian subjects" to "get out of hand", do you?

Luxemburg's opinions of Lenin and Trotsky were quite mixed. But without benefit of séances, I have no doubt at all what her opinion of you would be.

Same as mine.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[DaCuBaN]

Whence it is to be noted that in taking possession of a state the conqueror should well reflect as to the harsh measures that may be necessary, and then execute them at a single blow, so as not to be obliged to renew them every day, and by thus not repeating them, to assure himself of the support of the inhabitants, and win them over to himself by benefits bestowed. And he who acts otherwise, either from timidity or from being badly advised, will be obliged ever to be sword in hand, and will never be able to rely upon his subjects, who in turn will not be able to rely upon him, because of the constant fresh wrongs committed by him."

This does seem somewhat authoritarian, do you not think?


This kind of "what if" is completely unknowable and is basically a form of mental masturbation. Like physical masturbation, it's best practiced in private.

So you disagree with both masterbation - something that can assist people who have difficulty in controlling their sexual desires through psychological means - and cognotive exercises.


If you don't intend to discuss the article Luxemburg actually wrote, why are you even posting in this thread?

I must ask - why post in a theory forum if you don't like people hypothesising?


Political Grave Robbing

They're dead - you honestly think they care? Take it as simply another piece of propoganda - both the left and the right feel this unflinching desire to force it upon us by the bucketload.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 05:19 PM

Whence it is to be noted that in taking possession of a state the conqueror should well reflect as to the harsh measures that may be necessary, and then execute them at a single blow, so as not to be obliged to renew them every day, and by thus not repeating them, to assure himself of the support of the inhabitants, and win them over to himself by benefits bestowed. And he who acts otherwise, either from timidity or from being badly advised, will be obliged ever to be sword in hand, and will never be able to rely upon his subjects, who in turn will not be able to rely upon him, because of the constant fresh wrongs committed by him."

This does seem somewhat authoritarian, do you not think?
Sure. So what? Frankly, the whole "authoritarian" vs "anti-authoritarian" dichotomy is false.

You've emphasized the personal pronouns, but it applies equally when a party or class. rather than an individual has conquered power. And a revolution does involve conquering power; if you reject that, you're rejecting revolution.

Nobody's engaged the actual content of Machiavelli's point: that a little ruthlessness immediately after taking power may save a lot of ruthlessness later on.

Which is one reason it was correct for the Bolsheviks to promote their own experience as internationally applicable to a certain extent: it took them time, costly time, to learn ruthlessness, and revolutionaries in other countries may benefit from l being aware of the need in advance. Revolutions in other countries may face better situations, but are unlikely to face perfect or easy situations, and will certainly have to deal with the resistance of the ruling class.



This kind of "what if" is completely unknowable and is basically a form of mental masturbation. Like physical masturbation, it's best practiced in private.

So you disagree with both masterbation - something that can assist people who have difficulty in controlling their sexual desires through psychological means - and cognotive exercises.

Are you having trouble with the meaning of "best practiced in private"? I'm against PUBLIC masturbation. Similarly, if you really think unanswerable "what ifs" excercise your brain, feel free, but please don't waste my time with them.



Political Grave Robbing

They're dead - you honestly think they care? Take it as simply another piece of propoganda - both the left and the right feel this unflinching desire to force it upon us by the bucketload.

No, but as a living person who cares about political clarity and historical accuracy, I do.

You might want to look up the meaning of the word "propaganda", BTW.

[DaCuBaN]

Propaganda (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=propaganda) - The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause

I fail to see where my misunderstanding of this lies... By adopting someone to your cause you are bending the facts in your favour, and redistributing this to the world. It's termed as 'spin' and it is very much propaganda.


You've emphasized the personal pronouns, but it applies equally when a party or class. rather than an individual has conquered power. And a revolution does involve conquering power; if you reject that, you're rejecting revolution.


I reject the idea of class, and most vehemontly reject the idea of political parties - 'United we stand, divided we fall' is a false dichotomy - if we took the current political system in (as an example) the UK and removed the party political influence so that all members stood alone the chances are the system would work quite well. This is probably impossible in our current system to achieve, and hence I advocate a revolution to bring around direct democracy - nothing else.

My point here (as that turned into a rambling nonsense really :rolleyes: ) that I make up my own theories of how these things can function - I refuse to tie myself to predefined ideology.


Nobody's engaged the actual content of Machiavelli's point: that a little ruthlessness immediately after taking power may save a lot of ruthlessness later on.

Perhaps because it has no founding in reality. You assert this without reference to known fact: I know of no examples (please prove me wrong) where this has been succesful. I certianly see no communist states in the world, and some did follow this idea.


Are you having trouble with the meaning of "best practiced in private"?

No, just blind from too much masterbation :lol:
I merely missed that - I evidently wasn't paying enough attention to that piece of text. My apologies.


if you really think unanswerable "what ifs" excercise your brain, feel free, but please don't waste my time with them

I understand, but if you continue along these lines the what-if's will forever be unknown. Are you asserting that there are many, many questions that are simply beyond the ken of humanity? I cannot accept that. Debating with people is also a highly effective method of trying to 'crack' these problems - provided you try to retain an open mind thoughts and ideas that others propose in aforementioned debates will assist you when you do try to ponder these 'impossibles' in private.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 07:39 PM
Propaganda (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=propaganda) - The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause

I fail to see where my misunderstanding of this lies... By adopting someone to your cause you are bending the facts in your favour, and redistributing this to the world. It's termed as 'spin' and it is very much propaganda.
Your misunderstanding is the assumption that propaganda, advocating a cause, is bad or has to be dishonest. If the facts already support a view it's not necessary to bend them. As Che said "it's not my fault if reality is Marxist" or as the Daily Show's Rob Cordry said recently "the facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda."

As in this case: Luxemburg was in fact a communist, part of the early Communist International.




You've emphasized the personal pronouns, but it applies equally when a party or class. rather than an individual has conquered power. And a revolution does involve conquering power; if you reject that, you're rejecting revolution.


I reject the idea of class, and most vehemontly reject the idea of political parties - Whatever. They exist regardless of whether you reject them.




Nobody's engaged the actual content of Machiavelli's point: that a little ruthlessness immediately after taking power may save a lot of ruthlessness later on.

Perhaps because it has no founding in reality. You assert this without reference to known fact: I know of no examples (please prove me wrong) where this has been succesful. I certianly see no communist states in the world, and some did follow this idea.
Machiavelli gave examples from his time. I gave examples: Cuba on the positive side: "The history of the Cuban Revolution is a good example of this...upon first taking power, it carried out a harsh series of summary trials and executions of the Batista regime's murderers and torturers, and has been able to proceed with relative mercy and mildness ever since." And Russia on the negative side, failure to follow it. The Bolsheviks sought to warn others against the danger of doing likewise.


Are you asserting that there are many, many questions that are simply beyond the ken of humanity? I cannot accept that.

What? Obviously there are many questions that aren't knowable. If you can't accept that, you can't accept that you're human. Omniscience is a property of imaginary gods, not real people.