This country ruined the hopes of a revolution in Europe, how does that make you feel

I'm talking about why revolution didn't happen in Europe, not about the history of Poland specifically. Try reading buddy :)

Scapegoat

Now that's a spicy cover page

Also, although "Leninism" wasn't a thing in the 1920s, there was a shitty strain of Kautsky influenced Marxism that was. And even despite Lenin's disagreements with Kautsky, Lenin probably was influenced by Kautsky far more than he was by Marx.

Nah, it'd only be a scapegoat if I was blaming them unfairly.

Okay that made me actually laugh.

Stalin's undying hatred of Ukrainians on the southwestern front cost us the battle of Warsaw tbqh

Most Marxists at the time were influenced by Kautsky and Kaustky, unlike the Bolsheviks and successive generations of revolutionaries, knew Marx and especially Engels really well. He probably knew more about Marxism then anyone in Europe due to his personal connections with Marx and Engels and access to certain sources that wouldn't be published until later. There was a reason he was known as "the Pope of Marxism" in his time.

Kautsky also lead the charge against revisionism in the second international and Rosa Luxembourg and Liebknecht were largely on his side and following his lead until his betrayal during WWI. To sum it up Kautsky should at least be given credit that he was a great Marxist thinker who had good insights into Marxist theory even if his betrayal can never be forgotten or forgiven.

You don't really buy into that "Renegade Kautsky and his Disciple Lenin" shitposting by Dauvé do you? Lenin lived and breathed Marx and while now we can say he was probably limited in certain respects by texts that he probably didn't have access to in Russia its quite obvious to me that Lenin had an encyclopedic memory of Marx's works.

His theory of Imperialism which is oft-cited as being his biggest "revision" to Marxist theory was correctly dubbed by Sweezy and Baran as being a mere extension of Marx's Capital. To the Monthly Review school Lenin didn't go far enough in seeking to understand the laws of monopoly capitalism because he was limited by Marx's writings on classical lassiez-faire capitalism. So, the Monthly Review school is a revision of Leninism and really has very little in common with it though Shaikh claims to have felled both by demolishing the former.

Kuatsky was pretty based pre-WW1, stop acting like he was always a traitor

How did Monaco do it?

My man Dauvé had a point, both Kautsky and Lenin deviated from Marx in several of the same key areas, which left them both theoretically and practically impotent. Their "orthodoxy" is really just an idealist elitism that stems from their inversion of Marx's inversion of Hegel's Dialectic.

Kautsky and Lenin are both bad, my guy.

Neck yourself reddit nigger.

It's called "irony" friendo, and I did it to bug (you) :o)

Read some theory you fags: libcom.org/library/when-insurrections-die.

I guess that tired leftcom meme about people of the 2nd international period not knowing shit is actually true if the guy who knew the most wrote things like this:
marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1924/labour/ch03_j.htm

This is an established fact, though. Lenin even said it himself that he had believed in bullshit interpretations of Marx or otherwise shitty theory, that he rejected Kautsky in places but would in practice take on some of his influences anyways. In his 1915 notebooks, which he wrote after his return from studying in Switzerland, he wrote: "Half a century later, none of the Marxists understood Marx!!", calling hmself a fool for many of the things he previously believed. No Marxists' understanding of things has ever been linear or consistent over time, especially in Lenin's time where vulgar materialist strains like Machism existed.

It gets even worse if you look at stuff like this: marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1902/socrev/pt2-2.htm#s6, where he envisions socialism to have the most diverse forms of remuneration of labor, fixed wages, time wages, piece wages, participation in the economics in raw material, machinery, etc. The Second International was filled with garbo like that, with Kautsky as its largest figure.

Yeah, he was way past his prime and really a shadow of his former self by then but he wrote some good things. I'd say he was much better then Rosa Luxembourg who is practically worshipped on this board despite her completely wrong theory that capitalism would reach its limit when it exhausted all the petty-producers of the Third World while simultaneously holding the view that the rate of profit decline would only bring about an end of capitalism "when the sun burned out". Even Lenin though her theories on capital accumulation were wrong.

Truth be told, whether they had access or not to all of Marx's texts or understood this or that point, the personalities associated with the Second and Third Internationals actually stood up to Marx's challenge to change the world and not merely interpret it.

Leftcoms who believe there's no point in educating the working classes in Marxist theory because it will all "happen spontaneously" are much greater traitors to Marx's legacy then those who tried and failed.

...

She literally did nothing wrong, as she was also on the revolutionary side and at the same time didn't get her hands dirty. Also she had a vajayjay.
I liked Reform or Revolution though

It's all Lech Walesza's fault

What does Wałęsa have to do anything with early twenties?

She most certainly did.

On the subject of the first World War, she and Liebknecht took the centrist position in favour of a "peace without annexations". The correct position was the one advocated by Gorter and Lenin – revolutionary defeatism, the only one absent of the vapid nationalist lines dominant in the Second International.

She was also only against her will for the break with social democracy, the emergence of the Third International as well as the establishment of the KPD. She was a trenchant defender of the idea that the SPD needed to be reconquered, and she attacked vehemently the idea of splitting up until the point the leadership actively excluded the oppositional elements. She was even, personally, opposed to splitting the USPD and founding the KPD. Also, abstentionism was already an issue discussed and favoured by the majority (the majority of the KPD membership at this time was the main body that would later form the KAPD), and Luxemburg argued against it, in spite of her insistance on democratic solution-making in the issues mentioned before.

I'll also note something else you didn't touch on – Luxemburg's criticisms of the Russian revolution. Specifically, she criticised them for dissolving the constituent assembly in favour of Soviet power, in the name of "democracy and freedom". Let's laugh, though, at the fact that the few years the Soviets did have hegemonic power in Russia came precisely after the constituent assembly and privisional government were abolished. There is a tendency among some elements to see all criticism of the Bolsheviks as essentially revolutionary. But the criticisms advanced by Luxemburg are no different to those advanced by Kautsky and the Mensheviks (admittedly within the context of "critical support" rather outright condemnation).

I think the Luxemburg cult has various aspects. On the one hand there are the various left communist, libertarian socialist and anti-Bolshevik tendencies who seem to intentionally misunderstand Luxemburg's politics, especially on those points where she was a "centrist" in contrast to Lenin, in order to praise her and put them on their side. With regards to that, there is also the fact that Luxemburg is "pure". She never held any real position of authority and she died quite early in the history of the German revolution. In contrast to Lenin or Trotsky she was never confronted with a situation in which power had actually been seized. Furthermore, unlikely the other Spartacists like Levi, she never lived long enough to actively oppose the emerging communist left (on a large organisational scale – as noted, she did already oppose the left in the KPD founding congress even though it was the most influential and popular). The fact that she had a vagina and the SPD betrayal which is way too memed are also undoubtedly reasons why a lot of the illiterate pop-left likes her.

A big factor in this might be the effort Stalinists put into besmirching her name. Certainly it was this that led Trotsky to write occasionally in her defence and later Trotskyists to regard her as one of their own, but whatever the case, she definitely wasn't special, certainly not unique, and in no way beyond some of her theoretical works influential on anything after her.

good post

That's what I was talking about.
On a side note, the "luxemburgism" wikipedo meme one can see here and there pisses me off.

Niggers

Itt: faggots shitting on rosa

Warsaw was objectively his fault.

You left out the blue stripe in between the white and the red

Seriously, stalin was the worst thing that could have happened to socialism in history, in every timeline

says a DPRK supporter

Wałensa was soviet informator aka Bolek

ft.com/content/b40dd220-d633-11e5-829b-8564e7528e54

...

muh revolushyn

he is/was an opportunist vulture ready to sell anything and anyone for illusion of wealth and power