Been reading up some Luxemburg, and I gotta say...

Been reading up some Luxemburg, and I gotta say, from what I've read so far I can't really find anything wrong with her theory. Are there flaws to Luxemburgism? If not, why isn't it more popular?

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

You can't have a revolution if people don't care for one.

bump

There's no luxemburgism, it's just orthodox marxism or libertarian marxism at times

In reform or revolution what she says about unions is true. Also what she says about social democracy is true. However I think she is incorrect on other things. For example, she claims credit is a stage of capitalism, which is just plain ahistorical. Also, forming co-operatives, unlike unions, places capital directly in the hands of the workers. Now, this is still socialised capital, however it is a step towards the abolition of value, giving the proletariat actual control over those workplace makes them more able to move to free distribution, it also allows them to use funds to perpetuate the seizure of property. She equates actual worker democracy with bourgeoise democracy and Athenian democracy which is just lacking in nuance.

She also refers repeatedly to "the anarchy of capital" however capitalism and the state are inseparable. This is at best poor or inaccurate choice of words and at worst again ahistorical, as the nation state came about through the usurpation of commons into private property.

To this end Her theory fails also to account for the rise of neoliberalism, where capitalism centralized instead of decentralising, when liberal capital ceased to be laissez-faire in the classical liberal sense and became laissez faire in the neoconservative sense

She holds the conception of Marxist analysis as scientific socialism but then later says "science is an extremely fluid concept, everybody claims science" p83 revolutionary classics addition

I could go on, my notes are in two different note books though this is about 2/3s f what I got.

She gets 5/10, not bad but not great. IMO, interesting but not all that. yet to read accumulation of capital tho so maybe I'll change my mind

Also in terms of "luxemburgism" I really don't know what you mean. She didn't present a fully develop branch of recolutionary theory in her own right, she just added to Marxism.

Top comment

There is no such thing as "Luxemburgism". She was simply a Second International period Marxist.

If you're revolution fails to catch on its because you did something wrong. If it get crushed by imperialism after a valiant struggle that is different, those are theories we may learn valuable lessons from.

Bump cos I want someone to answer this critique

no such thing as "luxemburgism" she was just a second-Internationale orthodox marxist
and yes she was right on most things

Not gonna lie, I've never read anything Luxemburg. That is specifically because I defer to the Marxist principle: the practice validates the theory. As I've heard nothing about any sort of successful application of her personal doctrines, there must be none worth.

Even Marx calls it the Anarchy of capital. As in opposite of a planned economy. Actually I think he called it the anarchy of production but I think this is what Luxemburg is meaning.

Marx, like Luxemburg, has flaws. I'm not saying he is necessarily theoretically wrong but it helps to be accurate with language. Also another point, Marx supported some reformist measures yet Luxemburg never mentions this

With everything else I'd say this is the biggest and most damning crit of Luxemburg and it holds true for the Italians also.

You say this but her ideas have failed to ever really produce solid praxis really anywhere

She agreed. She was pretty sceptical about the German Revolution, and didn't join until pretty late into the whole affair. And even then, she still remained critical. Liebknecht was much more of a wannabe revolutionary.

...

are you saying the word anarchy only has one meaning, and it can not also be a synonym for chaos?

it means stateless, if you think that means chaos you are not a communist.

Do they actually call it that or is that translation?

One word can have more than one meaning you absolute fucking autist. "Anarchy of capital" or "anarchy of production" simply means that capitalist production is chaotic and random as hell, not that it's stateless.

It means without rulers I.e the owning class I.e communism. Capitalism and the state are inseparable

...

Use of the word anarchy to mean disorder, chaos, etc. goes back hundreds of years. Why is it so hard to understand that words can have different meanings in different contexts?

Isn't "Anarchy of capital" supposed to mean capitalism itself has no ruler?

...

Christ you're autistic

Calling somebody autistic is not an argument. If anything the repeated use of the word anarchy is an attempt to smear anarchism as capitalist. As I keep saying capitalism can never be anarchist, as the state and capitalism are inextricably linked. Considering both Marx and Lux are aware of anarchist discourse don't you find it odd they would use the word so flippantly?

Is there nothing better to do with our lives than argue over this bullshit?
I'm a LibSoc and I don't give two shits how she uses the word. Infer from context or stfu

Here, have Engels talk about the anarchy of production various times. From the context, it should be obvious he doesn’t mean stateless society, but disordered production.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm

No.