An important early Marxist.
Though she disagreed with Lenin I believe had the Spartacist Uprising succeeded - or at the very least had survived it - she would have changed her mind on much of the disagreements she had with him and the Bolsheviks. She was an intelligent and dialectical woman and I think when confronted with trying to build a socialist state she’d realize Lenin was right about the vanguard party.
Sadly she was murdered while still in her prime, much like Gramsci and Guevara.
A product of her time. Her critique was mostly that of wanting spontaneity of development throughout the working class vs having elite & professional revolutionaries as she thought a dedicated class would end up repeating the same power structures over time of previous systems (an entrenched bureaucratic elite) - The concern was understandable, especially after similar had happened in the french revolution but expecting mass movements without a focused and educational nucleation point was on the niave side.
She was the first Marxist I read when I was young. A fearless, and intelligent women. Her critique especially on the vanguard party and her conviction that class consciousness has to come through the active struggle by the working class and not only from the outside by said party is something that I think about until today. Not saying I completely agree with her, but there lies truth in her critique when we find ourselves in conditions which are not like early 20th century Russia. RIP Rosa Luxemburg, murdered 15th January 1919.
Rest in peace. Never a day where I don’t remember her sacrifice.
I haven’t read her own theories. She did pop up in a lot of situations with mixed quotes. So far I’m getting mostly left communism/trotzkyist vibes from her actions. But I might be misremembering.
She was around before the Soviet Union and mostly did Orthodox Marxist and Social-Democracy (classical/pre1920s not reformist or demsucc). Criticised reformism as well as the vanguard state but still acknowledged the need for revolution. Less of a western com revisionist than often Portrayed to be, more of a classical Marxist if anything. She was writing theory around the same time as Lenin so one isn’t really more revisionist than the other in a literal sense.
She seems like she was conflicted about the vanguard party, she sees the purpose of it but cant justify the means. i can’t find the quotes though
I never said revisionist. I’m saying left communist/trotzkyist. That means okay with capitalism and generally bigoted on material conditions, e.g. idealist, etc.
The conditions the bolsheviks found were just reality and they did great. Everyone saying different is sus imo. Nobody else ever managed to do what they did or ever since. There is nobody who has the tiniest credit to actually criticize them imo.
yeah, I get what you mean now and she was NOT ok with capitalism and was definitely a materialist from what I’ve read of her work.
I obviously need to read more about her once I have the time. But so far it seems like her material conditions were very different than those of lenin which led to some discussuions, partly on the national question and libs famously use her as a stepping stone to discredit the bolschewiks but i’ll have to find that.
Being used by others for something doesn’t constitute being that. I can understand why you’d think that though. Although she did discredit the bolsheviks, it was simple dialectics.
Why dont you make the effort to actually educat yourbcomrades instead of this barely good faith argument? It feels very different from the usual way of discussing things here. If you state something, prove it.
My proof is the entire pamphlet ‘The Russian Revolution’. She always critiqued other socialist/communist ideologies as a friend, not a hater and her arguments were never not atleast somewhat dialectical.
I think the wording “discredit” is not correct in this case. I don’t wanna discuss the whole Russian revolution analysis by Luxemburg, which she wrote in prison btw. But when I read the latter and also her works I always saw her as a critical friend. She was a Marxist and a Socialist and she would only formulate her critique from a place of admiration and sincere conviction. Her critique is never not out of a Marxist perspective.
