What is Luxemburgism?

When I tell people I'm a luxemburgist, I always have to add the fact that it is democratic communsim.
But my impression is that luxemburgism incorporate other left-wing currents into it's theory.

This is according to Wikipedia:
"The chief tenets of Luxemburgism are commitment to democracy and the necessity of the revolution taking place as soon as possible. In this regard, it is similar to Council Communism, but differs in that, for example, Luxemburgists don't reject trade unions or elections by principle. It resembles anarchism in its insistence that only relying on the people themselves as opposed to their leaders can avoid an authoritarian society, but differs in that it sees the importance of a revolutionary party, and mainly the centrality of the working class in the revolutionary struggle."

Indeed, it is a good question to ask. When a persons starts looking into Luxemburg's theories, we must put aside what has been said about her by other (Trotskysts and council communists) : she was wrong but a nice person... she died for her beliefs but the German revolution did not go through because of her... she "supported" the Russian revolution with small fallacious criticism, according to Trotskysts, or she rejected unionism and elections by principles would say council communists...

All this is one-sided. The best way to know her theories is to read her.

I will present a little summary of the most important works below. Before I would advise you to read a small text written by Pelz on Luxemburgism (much better than what there is on Wikipedia) :
Another Luxemburgism is possible : Reflections on Rosa and the radical socialist project

The articles discusses Luxemburgist political theories but leaves a bit out the economics (it is a pity). It is still a very good article.

This paper will argue that a new appreciation of Rosa, “another Luxemburgism,”
true to Rosa’s principles and free of Stalinist revisionism, might develop from certain
key aspects of her work. Among the tenants that cry out for inclusion in such a list, I
will focus on five: 1) steadfast belief in democracy; 2) complete faith in the common
people (the masses); 3) dedication to internationalism in word and deed; 4)
commitment to a democratic revolutionary party; and 5) unshakable practice of
humanism. There are, of course, many more areas of her thought which hold vital clues
for those who would follow her in the twenty-first century.

Some comrades of CD (Communsit Democracy) made translations into French and Spanish.

To me the most important works are :

Reform or Revolution (1900)
At the end of the 19th century/beginning of the 20th century, a strong current within Marxism, known as "Opportunism", developed specially in the German Social-Democrat Party (SPD). Bernstein could be considered is a major figure of this current.

What did they say? That Marx was wrong when he is said that Capitalism would collapse and that revolution is necessary. But Capitalism can overcome crisis (with cartels, credit/loans, parlementary democracy...). The members of the party should only focussed in elections and mere reforms and one day Capitalism will be transformed into Socialism.
100 years later, one can only laugh.

Luxemburg developped the exact opposite idea. If Capitalism will not fall apart (as happened during WWI, a few years after the book) then Communism is not a necessity, so why bother fighthing Capitalism. She made criticisms of Berstein's arguments.

I can not make you a summary of the entire book (I have not finished it yet, because of lack of time) but one of the key points of the debate is very important to today's world. That is, can Capitalism survive thanks to loans? Berstein said that indeed there could be crisis but as long as we give loans to companies then everything goes back to normal, eventually.

Rosa Luxemburg said the opposite. The loans help Capitalism for all a short time frame. Eventually, it makes the system "addicted" to it and whenever a crisis strikes, loans are not given by credit institutions and the crisis deepens.

Look at what is going on now with the Subprime crisis. The Subprimes were credit given to poor workers so that they get a house. Since these people were poor and that they may not pay back, the banks charged them big interest rates. If these families went broke (as actually happened) the bank could seize their properties and sell them, because if the real estate keeps increasing, they would get their money back (and they did not care if workers went back to having no property).

But the real estate value decrease as the families could not give back what they owed (default of payment). Therefore, many banks made huge losses, needed cahs but stop lending to other banks. Every bank knew that the others had followed the same risky strategy of subprimes. Money stopped being given in form of credits, but it is now that they are needed the most to overcome the crisis.

I am not going further because we are escaping the initial question (the role of loans in Capitalism). But you can see that by giving too much loans to the economy so to increase the consumption, the remedy turned out worst than the initial problem. Today, most major capitalist states have important debts.

Many people have said, as Bernstein did, that Capitalism could survive. Today bourgeois say we would go past the financial/economical crisis using the Central Bank who give money to credit institutions. Luxemburg's book is a study on these questions.

To sum up: socialists must help workers gain social reforms but we must go forward to a Communist system.

The Mass Strike (1906)
This a major work in Marxism, even though it is largely left on the side (like Luxemburg's ideas in general). In Rosa Luxemburg analyzes the 1905 Revolution in Russia. She reached some important conclusions.

For years, revolutionaries searched for what was the tool for workers' revolution and many people came up with many alternatives (political party, syndicalist organizing, terrorism...). Luxemburg says that Russian workers invented spontaneously the weapon for their struggle : workers' council (Soviet in Russian). Workers spontaneously and democratically used councils to organize the struggle without there to be the help of a political party like the German SPD or a centralized undemocratic Bolshevik Party.

This book deals with an important question : what is the role of revolutionary parties/groups towards the revolution. Lenin said pretty much that the revolutionary party should substitute itself to the workers' councils because workers would only ask for reforms whereas revolutionary parties would fight for revolution (from the top).

Luxemburgists believe that the party should only advice and help the movement, not rule it. Workers' councils are the only organs of the revolution. After Revolution takes place, these "soviets" will become the revolutionary state as opposed to the Bolshevik idea of State-Communist Party, leaving workers with no power.

Look at today, workers are becoming more organized (even though is yet not enough) without a major party. In 1968 most movements were outside of party controls. In France, the workers went beyond the communist-controlled union and the CP itself. The communist party and the CGT union tried by all means to prevent revolution. Why? Because it could unite with the struggles in "Socialist" block (Czech republic, Hungary). They were integrated into the French capitalist system.

The idea that workers spontaneous movement is far more useful than "bright" leaders is common to Luxemburgism and council communism, as well as the idea that workers, and not the party, should rule. But Luxemburg never said unions and political parties were not needed. Revolutionary workers must organize themselves in political groups or unions as long as it contributes in developing workers' own liberation.

The National Question (1909)
Whereas Leninists claim that nationalist movements, even though they are not revolutionaries, should be backed up by revolutionaries. This is to me very stupid. If we look at the 20th centuries wars waged on nationalism (right or left) you realize that it did not helped.

Did the nationalists movements in the Third World help emancipate the workers of these areas? The new leaders of these poor regions remained dependent on the imperialist powers and their allies.

Furthermore, remplacing an imperialist bourgeois cast by a local bourgeois cast does not mean the end of capitalism. If the master change names, slavery stays intact.

Nationalism has always been used for reactionary policies like war or anti-revolutionary movements. We believe people all over the world are equal and that proleterians have no homeland.

This does not mean that we do not stand against minorities' right to have access to their culture. But that is not patriotism/nationalism.

Introduction to Political Economy
The Accumulation of Capital (1913)
The Accumulation of capital : An anti-critique (1915)

I will add more promptly...

"When a persons starts looking into Luxemburg's theories, we must put aside what has been said about her by other (Trotskysts and council communists)"

I've read a biography about Lenin (Lenin: A Biography (2000) by Robert Service), but it also mention Trotsky. My impression is that when he was exiled by Stalin and saw the Soviet Union from another angle, that's when he became democratic. The Lenin biography mention that Trorsky would always carry a pistol and personly execute "enemies of the people".
Trotskyists forgets that Lenin and Trotsky wasn't better then Stalin. They started the state terror, executions and labour camps (GULAG), Stalin only exceeded them.

"1) steadfast belief in democracy; 2) complete faith in the common
people (the masses); 3) dedication to internationalism in word and deed; 4)
commitment to a democratic revolutionary party; and 5) unshakable practice of
humanism."

This sums it up much better. Thanks.

"At the end of the 19th century/beginning of the 20th century, a strong current within Marxism, known as "Opportunism", developed specially in the German Social-Democrat Party (SPD). Bernstein could be considered is a major figure of this current.

What did they say? That Marx was wrong when he is said that Capitalism would collapse and that revolution is necessary. But Capitalism can overcome crisis (with cartels, credit/loans, parlementary democracy...). The members of the party should only focussed in elections and mere reforms and one day Capitalism will be transformed into Socialism.
100 years later, one can only laugh."

Even in Scandinavia, social democrats are considered as right-wing parties. As in Northern Europe, the true conservatives are social democrats. Here the other day I read a interview with a Norwegian conservative intellectual welcoming the Labour Party to the capitalist ideology.

But can council communism and luxemburgism be compared? Do they both talk about direct democray?

Sirco wrote:When I tell people I'm a luxemburgist, I always have to add the fact that it is democratic communsim.
But my impression is that luxemburgism incorporate other left-wing currents into it's theory.

This is according to Wikipedia:
"The chief tenets of Luxemburgism are commitment to democracy and the necessity of the revolution taking place as soon as possible. In this regard, it is similar to Council Communism, but differs in that, for example, Luxemburgists don't reject trade unions or elections by principle. It resembles anarchism in its insistence that only relying on the people themselves as opposed to their leaders can avoid an authoritarian society, but differs in that it sees the importance of a revolutionary party, and mainly the centrality of the working class in the revolutionary struggle."

Is the communist left luxemburgist in your opinion? Certainly it draws heavily on her work. As for the positions on the unions, I would let here speak herself:

R.Luxemborg wrote:[the unions] are no longer workers' organisations; they are the most solid defenders of the state and bourgeois society. Consequently it follows that the struggle for socialisation must entail the struggle to destroy the unions. We are all agreed on this point.

Devrim

Council communism and Luxemburgism are similar in many ways. Of course the luxemburgists do read the council communists theoricians.

About the unions in Germany in the beginning of the 20th century, you must remember that they were led by the right-wing of the SPD (especially Carl Legien).

Atreides wrote:Council communism and Luxemburgism are similar in many ways. Of course the luxemburgists do read the council communists theoricians.

So what exactly do you mean by 'Luxemburgism'? Where does it differ from the politics of the communist left?

Devrim

Before anything else, I apologize for not being able to complete my summary. I am thinking of preparing a presentation of Luxemburgism in a future article.

For the time being, I focussed on the current debates :

But can council communism and luxemburgism be compared? Do they both talk about direct democray?

So what exactly do you mean by 'Luxemburgism'? Where does it differ from the politics of the communist left?

These two questions are pretty much the same if by "Left communism" we mean German/Dutch as well as Bordiguist left.

Yes, there is a lot in common. Council communists and Luxemburgists : we stand for direct democracy by building a council system going from bottom to top with delegates.

However, some council communists reject the idea of a political organization (party).

But to me the main difference between these currents is that Luxemburgism does not reject trade unions, participation in elections and parliaments per se.

Of course we do not believe that bourgeois elections and parliaments are the solution to problems (we would not be Marxists) but we should use all means to get reforms but always pointing out that the solution is revolution.

The same idea goes for unions. Of course they are completely integrated in the system. I see that every time there are strikes on a national scale if not many times in local. But they are helpful in the day-to-day struggle within companies. The point is that they have to help workers and as soon as they stand in the way (as they often do) we should go past them and fight them.
An article on French strikes of rail workers discussed this issue : Chroniques de la « France d’après » : Les régimes spéciaux de retraite en France it is in French, sorry.

We also support anti-fascism struggles but knowing that the ultimate goal is revolution.

To sum up : we support social reforms and are ok in working in some structures like unions, parliaments but always going against them whenever it is necesseray to show that the way forward is revolution.

This is my personal point of view, other may reply too

These two questions are pretty much the same if by "Left communism" we mean German/Dutch as well as Bordiguist left.

Yes, I think that the communist left today draws on both the German/Dutch left as well as the Italian left.

Yes, there is a lot in common. Council communists and Luxemburgists : we stand for direct democracy by building a council system going from bottom to top with delegates.

Yes, but lots of groups would claim to. What about specific politics?

For us the most vital point is internationalism. This means a rejection of national liberation struggles.

But to me the main difference between these currents is that Luxemburgism does not reject trade unions, participation in elections and parliaments per se.

Of course we do not believe that bourgeois elections and parliaments are the solution to problems (we would not be Marxists) but we should use all means to get reforms but always pointing out that the solution is revolution.

Is real reform possible today? It is a very important question which dominates our view on the parliamentary, and union questions.

We also support anti-fascism struggles but knowing that the ultimate goal is revolution.

Why are the fascists worse than the other bourgeois parties?

Looking forward to your response,

Devrim

the communist left today draws on both the German/Dutch left as well as the Italian left

... and that's the problem, since German/Dutch left is very different from the Italian left. The views of the German/Dutch left have been verified by History.

the most vital point is internationalism. This means a rejection of national liberation struggles

We agree on that. I think that this is shared not only by the luxemburgists, but also by the whole German/Dutch left, and by the SPGB and the WSM.

Is real reform possible today?

Only by a strong class struggle. What is called "reform" today is oftenly "counter-reform", unfortunately, and because the workers are weaker than the capitalist class.

Why are the fascists worse than the other bourgeois parties?

Well, History tells a lot about the suffering of the working class under fascist regimes.

I'm under a bourgeois state power, but I can openly advocate for an overthrown of that power and an overthrown of capitalism, in booklets and leaflets. Under a fascist regime I would be in jail (at the best).

Only by a strong class struggle. What is called "reform" today is oftenly "counter-reform", unfortunately, and because the workers are weaker than the capitalist class.

And what role would you see parliamentarianism as playing in this?

Well, History tells a lot about the suffering of the working class under fascist regimes.

Yes, but fascism was a historical phenomenon limited in time and space. The small 'fascist' parties in Western Europe are not coming to power whilst the social democratic and conservative parties make attacks on the working class and minorities that the fascists could only fantasise about.

I'm under a bourgeois state power, but I can openly advocate for an overthrown of that power and an overthrown of capitalism, in booklets and leaflets. Under a fascist regime I would be in jail (at the best).

I live under a bourgeois state power. It is illegal for me to advocate the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. I am a member of an illegal organisation which publishes an illegal magazine. When the fascists were in government (the parliament before last) I didn't notice any difference really.

Devrim

I think the key to the debate is how to act (we more or less agree on the facts : unions often betray workers, parliamentarism and mere reformism are not the solution...). However, you think we should not participate at all in elections, parliaments, unions... and in anti-fascist struggles. I am for it but at some conditions.

In a revolutionary period, workers are well aware of their goals or are at least, in the beginning searching for them. The bourgeoisie will use all it can (unions, parlamentary bourgeois elections...) to make promises to workers and make them deviate from a revolutionary path. If this does not work, then you can have fascism : attempts to create a totalitarian dictatorship banning all unions, strikes etc.

This is more or less what happened in major revolutions.

In such period where workers have constituted their own councils, elections and unions are exclusively aimed at taking their power away and bring them back to bourgeois system. Here, we oppose elections and unions, because the class struggle has reached its climax and they become an obstacle.

But before such a period (like today) where there is an aggressive attack on workers, all means that can be useful in any way (this excludes terrorism since it is useless) should be used to defend ourselves and fight back. For example, if revolutionaries are elected in the parliament, they should use it as a tribune to speak to a larger number of people (the same goes for participation in elections) and use workers' movement (demonstrations, strikes) as a pressure weapon to back up positive reforms. But we should never say pure bourgeois parliamentarism and reforms are enough.

Why? Because at some points reforms are impossible within Capitalism (are we in such a period? I think so because it seems it is impossible to increase profits without destroying previous social reforms). But this does not mean that we should not fight back when the make our lifes more precarious and that we should not struggle for bettering our pays. We won't sit back and wait untill revolution magically occurs.

As reforms get approved due to mass movement, workers will see that they have to go further. But until then, talking about revolution and refusing to demand social reforms and protect those that have already been achieved will make no sense to proletarians (they are right).

As for Fascism, it is indeed a historical phenomena. It is part of class struggle and refusing to act against it is avoiding the fight. This struggle should be kept even now when fascists are ridiculously insignificant.

The reason why some left communists oppose being part of anti-fascism is because they see that as taking side in war waged between different bourgeois groups/countries. That would be accepting the official anti-fascism (ie Churchill, Stalin and De Gaulle were "anti-fascists" because they opposed Hitler, forgetting that Stalin sided with Hitler and that Churchill admired Mussolini before WWII).

Our anti-fascism is revolutionnary since we see Fascism not as an opposition to Bourgeois system but as an aspect of it when bourgeois democracy fails to keep social order during a revolutionnary process. As such, we fight it as part of Capitalism.

As for Left communism I distinguish between Dutch/German Left and Italian Left. The latter is not interesting to me at all since it is based on Leninism and rejects anti-fascism. But as far as the Dutch/German left is concerned, I find it quite interesting but I disagree on union, elections and reforms : this current initiated in a revolutionnary process in which it was normal to oppose unions and elections (German revolution 1918 - 1923 ?) because workers were strong and armed. Today, it is not the case.

But before such a period (like today) where there is an aggressive attack on workers, all means that can be useful in any way (this excludes terrorism since it is useless) should be used to defend ourselves and fight back. For example, if revolutionaries are elected in the parliament, they should use it as a tribune to speak to a larger number of people (the same goes for participation in elections) and use workers' movement (demonstrations, strikes) as a pressure weapon to back up positive reforms. But we should never say pure bourgeois parliamentarism and reforms are enough.

It is interesting that you exclude terrorism 'since it is useless'. Why do you consider parliamentarianism to be different? I don't really but the tribune argument.

On the point of strikes, of course we support them. As communists we support the working class in every defence of its living standards. The question about the unions is different.

Why? Because at some points reforms are impossible within Capitalism (are we in such a period? I think so because it seems it is impossible to increase profits without destroying previous social reforms). But this does not mean that we should not fight back when the make our lifes more precarious and that we should not struggle for bettering our pays. We won't sit back and wait untill revolution magically occurs.

We believe that we are in such a period, and it has political implications. Of course the working class should fight to defend its living conditions. Not only does this defend living conditions, but it is also an indispensable part of the development towards the mass strike.

The reason why some left communists oppose being part of anti-fascism is because they see that as taking side in war waged between different bourgeois groups/countries. That would be accepting the official anti-fascism (ie Churchill, Stalin and De Gaulle were "anti-fascists" because they opposed Hitler, forgetting that Stalin sided with Hitler and that Churchill admired Mussolini before WWII).

Yes, the left communists did reject support of the 'democracies' in WWII. Incidentally the fact that the bourgeoisie are not consistently anti-fascist comes as no surprise.

It is also a question though of joining in with bourgeois fronts today, 'vote social democrat to keep the fascists out' for example.

Our anti-fascism is revolutionnary since we see Fascism not as an opposition to Bourgeois system but as an aspect of it when bourgeois democracy fails to keep social order during a revolutionnary process.

Historically, fascism emerged after the revolutionary movement had been defeated.

As for Fascism, it is indeed a historical phenomena. It is part of class struggle and refusing to act against it is avoiding the fight. This struggle should be kept even now when fascists are ridiculously insignificant.

In our country they are not. They are the third party in parliament, and were in government the time before last. That said, I don't believe that fascism, in its historical sense, is in anyway on the agenda today. In the last crisis in the South East of this country, the anti-Kurdish pogrom mentality was not hyped up by the fascists. It was created by all bourgeois parties.

I think there are many lessons to be drawn from the struggle between the left and right in Turkey in the period leading up to the 1980 coup. One of the most important ones is that 'anti-fascism' can become gang war with the working class just looking on passively.

As for Left communism I distinguish between Dutch/German Left and Italian Left. The latter is not interesting to me at all since it is based on Leninism and rejects anti-fascism.

At first glance the Italian left seems like ultra-leninism, and certainly has problems like that. However, there is much of interest there too.

Devrim

It is interesting that you exclude terrorism 'since it is useless'. Why do you consider parliamentarianism to be different? I don't really but the tribune argument.

Terrorism is useless in the sense that we believe socials problems are due to social relations and not people. Murdering specific bourgeois leaders (as in propaganda by the deed) or putting a bomb somewhere will not blow up social conditions. It can only put off workers and spark repression at a time where workers are not at all organised for revolution.

On the other hand, all the laws that passes are part of class struggle. For instance in France, at this moment the bourgeois parliament with the government is planning to attack the pensions for workers. Isn't that an attack of one class against another? Can't we try to counter them in any way?

As for the "tribune" effect issued from participating in elections, there can't be no doubt about it. In France, the two main trotkyst parties managed to gain a lot of votes (3 millions) because during the election they are allowed to speak on TV and many people got to hear some proposals no other party defended : distributing wealth for example. This surely contributes but it is not enough.

I repeat myself, elections and parliamentarism are NOT the solution. But they are part of the class war before a revolutionary period. When we'll reach that point, we should not take part in bourgeois elections. Why? Because workers would have set up a revolutionary form of power : soviets.

Yes, the left communists did reject support of the 'democracies' in WWII.

I oppose them too. I don't buy the lie that they tried to protect democracy and Jews.

However, it is a very difficult point. How can we fight Fascism without supporting bourgeois state? Doing nothing is not a solution. I have difficulties accepting the view that the civil war in Spain was not part of class war... as it is said by some left communists.

It is also a question though of joining in with bourgeois fronts today, 'vote social democrat to keep the fascists out' for example.

In France too there is a very strong far right party (not fascist but having some of them as members). I keeply reject the "vote social democrat (here it was conservatives) to keep fascists" away. Today's government has used the fear on foreigners and stole their rethorics to raise racism and win votes.

But our anti-fascism is far more far reaching. Anti-fascism is today fought on the streets in Europe. Look at the "Antifas" : http://www.antifa.net , specially in Germany.

Shouldn't workers and revolutionaries be active in this?

At first glance the Italian left seems like ultra-leninism, and certainly has problems like that. However, there is much of interest there too.

What is there beyond Leninism and opposition to anti-fascism and elections? Do they oppose joining unions? I read about them long time ago.

And where does the EKS stand for, is it near the ICC or IBRP or none (or both)?

And where does the EKS stand for, is it near the ICC or IBRP or none (or both)?

The EKS is close to, but not a part of, the ICC. Having said that we also have reasonable relations with the IBRP too.

I think that we have clarified what the mains differences between us are, anti-fascism, and Parliamentarianism. Your position on parliament is quite clear, but I don't quite understand what you are saying about anti-fascism:

But our anti-fascism is far more far reaching. Anti-fascism is today fought on the streets in Europe. Look at the "Antifas" : http://www.antifa.net , specially in Germany.

Shouldn't workers and revolutionaries be active in this?

I have no idea really about what 'Antifas' are. We don't have them in Turkey. Could you explain what it is about, please.

What is there beyond Leninism and opposition to anti-fascism and elections? Do they oppose joining unions? I read about them long time ago.

There is a lot really, but I would recommend some of Bordiga's writings especially about the nature of communism. I think that there are more in French than in English. This pamphlet offers an interesting comparison of Bordiga, and Pannekoek's works on party and class.

Devrim

In some states, "anti-fascism" has its legitimacy and is acceptable for Luxemburgu today, others, like in Spain, is fighting windmills, like Don Quixote: it makes it comfortable to be Stalinist antifascists, in fact never been something else ... revolutionaries. Today the "fascism" is in the EU and its governor, in neoliberalism, the Stability Pact of the EU, supranational bodies to raise the undemocratic public policy, social, etc..
health comrades: this translated Poire the machine: not English. JM

En algunos estados "antifascismo" tiene su legitimidad y es de recibo para los luxemburguistas AL DIA DE HOY, en otros, como en España, es luchar contra molinos de viento, como en El Quijote: se les hace cómodo a los estalinistas ser antifascistas, de hecho jamás fueron otra cosa...revolucionarios. Hoy el "fascismo" está en la UE y sus GOBERNANZAS, en el NEOLIBERALISMO, el Pacto de Estabilidad de la UE, en elevar a instancias supranacionales NO DEMOCRATICAS las politicas publicas, sociales, etc.
salud camaradas: esto traducido por la maquina: no leo inglés. JM