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.
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.
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.
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.