Anarchism and Luxemburgism

  1. The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change
    The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change
    Hello everyone,I decided to join since this group included in the description ''those who are influenced by Rosa Luxemburg and her writings and actions'' even though I am myself an anarchist.I respect Luxemburg quite much and I agree in most of her opinions (particulary the spontaneous organisation) but I wanted to ask the rest of you.What are your views on anarchism?What are your critiques of the movement in both theory and practice?Hopefully we can have a more constructive discussion here than in the general boards (I'm tired of getting the ''Engels on Authority'' response)
  2. mikail firtinaci
    I am a left communist but I strongly recommend you to read these two peerless pieces of Rosa;

    this is on how rosa differed from reformist currents -actually it is quite different from anarchism since for her "revolutionary" approach was not based on neglacting politics;

    http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxe...tion/index.htm

    This is on spontenouity - she was not for a spontenous "organization" but what she thought was that working class mass action can not be prepared in advance. However she was for the organisation and especially political organization;

    http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxe...rike/index.htm
  3. Spartakiste
    Spartakiste
    I used to be anarchist and then broke when I just started selling anarchist newspaper. I just imagined myself discussing with people how we could fight an armed counter-revolution with a state and realize it was impossible.

    I thenk searched, read some Trotsky and some Left communists, but I always had key disagreement with them. It is then that I discovered her ideas and realize that I agreed with her on all major points. Her views on the Mass Strike and Economics consolidated my way of thinking.

    To go back to the question that made me go to Marxism (is a State necessary ?) the problem is not whether a state exists or not, but rather what kind of state will appear after Revolution ? As Luxemburg pointed out, that State ("dictatorship of proletariat") will have to be fully democratic, taking its roots at the workers' council and not, like Lenin suggested, a state ruled by the dictatorship of the party leaders...


    So in essence, I think Anarchism has a lot of good sides that I agree with (Marxism also aims at a stateless society and is also a socialism from below) but I think that it bases its motivation on pure ideals without looking at a method of studying today's reality to look for a method of fight. That, Marxism tries to give an answer, might be wrong but I adhere to certainly.
  4. Scarlet Fever
    Scarlet Fever
    I'm fairly new to all of this--still trying to sort through all the tendencies...I've been trying to pin down the different streams mentioned in this thread--maybe you all can help clarify? I'm wondering, if Marxism in general requires abolition of the state, how do Luxemburgism, Left Communism and Council Communism differ from it (and from each other)? And how do these in turn differ from Anarchism and Libertarian Socialism/Marxism? Thank you! :S
  5. Scarlet Fever
    Scarlet Fever
    Reposted above question in Learning forum. Thanks!
  6. Red Brigade
    Red Brigade
    Do Luxemburgist believe in a workers state or go straight to a stateless society?
  7. Blake's Baby
    Blake's Baby
    I don't think Luxemburgists believe either in a workers' state, or going straight to a stateless society. A stateless society isn't possible first off, because there will be classes after the revolution; so in that sense I guess a workers' state makes more sense. But then again, I don't see that as being a stable thing - 'a state' - so much as a transitional process that the world working class goes through.

    The world revolution will a be a protracted affair, and the suppression of capitalism can't be done by diktat on day 1 (or even on day 100, or probably day 1,000). The working class will have to administer society. I don't see 'a state' there because the 'workers' state' will have to encompass the whole world.

    But there will be state-like functions for some time, not least because the revolution won't be immediately successful everywhere, and the organisation of society in the midst of a war with capitalism will be extremely difficult without an organisation capable of oppressing the capitalists.

    As a state is the organisation that one class uses to oppress another, there will be a form of proletarian revolutionary state, but not I hope in anything the form a 'workers' state' is understood by Leninists.
  8. AsozialerKommunist
    AsozialerKommunist
    Hello everyone,I decided to join since this group included in the description ''those who are influenced by Rosa Luxemburg and her writings and actions'' even though I am myself an anarchist.I respect Luxemburg quite much and I agree in most of her opinions (particulary the spontaneous organisation) but I wanted to ask the rest of you.What are your views on anarchism?What are your critiques of the movement in both theory and practice?Hopefully we can have a more constructive discussion here than in the general boards (I'm tired of getting the ''Engels on Authority'' response)
    I got "Engels on Authority" from a stalinist once. To my mind, Engels meant, that authority is not always unimportant. And he argued about the Anti-Authorians that fight against ALL kinds of Authority, which is nonsense in some branches. Engels gives the example of a cotton spinning mill, where workers have to work quickly to absolve their job. So there has to be some Authority (which doesn't mean that there has to be a boss or something like that) so that workers are not too slow and lazy Well I don't know how spinning looks nowadays, but let me guess, that machines became modern enough, so that workers don't need to work so quickly. It always depends on the situation and circumstances.
    Maybe I can motivate you, by giving you the preword from 1872 of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx, where he says:

    >>The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.” (See The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men’s Association, 1871, where this point is further developed.)<<

    BTW: I like Anarchism as much as I like Marxism. What i criticize on both is, that Anarchists and Marxists often hate each other even they mostly do not think too different. (I mean Left-Marxists/ Council-Communists)
  9. Fourth Internationalist
    Do Luxemburgist believe in a workers state or go straight to a stateless society?
    Of course. She was a Marxist, and therefore accepted the dictatorship of the proletariat.
  10. Aslan
    I tend to orient myself a lot towards Luxemburgism. However I am not an anarchist since I know that there must be a temporary state in order to effectively command and fight in a revolutionary scenario. I disagree from Luxemburg because I believe that a syndicated confederation of unions and democratic workplaces can offer economic success in the transition to communism. I also reject Leninism and Trotskyism as a centralized vanguard party is not a true reflection of democracy.
  11. Blake's Baby
    Blake's Baby
    But Luxemburg's conception of the party was not very different to Lenin's.

    What is it that you agree with that Rosa said?
  12. criticalrealist
    criticalrealist
    IMO, Red Rosa is the heart of communism. From reading her work, it becomes clear that she genuinely cared for people. Her advocacy of democratic communism - and her pointed critiques of Lenin and Trotsky - were sincere. Notably, however, after Rosa's assassination, Lenin did not criticize her (as he did with other left communists). To this day, many Leninists, Trotskyists, and anarchists admire Rosa. Some communists, like me, even identify with her tendency.
  13. criticalrealist
    criticalrealist
    Aslan,

    I agree with you. Rosa critiqued the views of Lenin and Trotsky as too formulaic:

    “The tacit assumption underlying the [Vladimir] Lenin-[Leon] Trotsky theory of dictatorship is this: that the socialist transformation is something for which a ready-made formula lies completed in the pocket of the revolutionary party, which needs only to be carried out energetically in practice. This is, unfortunately – or perhaps fortunately – not the case. Far from being a sum of ready-made prescriptions which have only to be applied, the practical realization of socialism as an economic, social and juridical system is something which lies completely hidden in the mists of the future. What we possess in our program is nothing but a few main signposts which indicate the general direction in which to look for the necessary measures, and the indications are mainly negative in character at that. Thus we know more or less what we must eliminate at the outset in order to free the road for a socialist economy. But when it comes to the nature of the thousand concrete, practical measures, large and small, necessary to introduce socialist principles into economy, law and all social relationships, there is no key in any socialist party program or textbook. That is not a shortcoming but rather the very thing that makes scientific socialism superior to the utopian varieties.”

    -- Rosa Luxemburg. The Russian Revolution and Leninism or Marxism? Bertram Wolfe, translator. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ann Arbor Paperback imprint of The University of Michigan Press. 1961. Pages 69-70.

    Mark Foster