Social democrats are organizing commities like the soviets and unions? Where?
The Luxemburg point was about the preindustrialised consensus. The point that only industrialized country should become socialist. She was also against the bolshevik centralized power structure. Like the mensheviks
Social democrats are organizing commities like the soviets and unions? Where?
Social democrats are reformists just as menshiviks are. The approach demonstrably does not work, and what it accomplishes in practice is perpetuation of capitalism.
Meanwhile, Luxemburg was very much not against centralized structure. You make blatantly false statements either because you’re ignorant or because you’re intentionally trying to misrepresent things.
Luxemburg and Lenin shared core Marxist commitments to revolution and socialism, but their views on centralization and the vanguard reflected nuanced disagreements within revolutionary strategy. Here’s how Luxemburg’s ideas aligned with, and diverged from, those of Lenin.
First thing to state is that Luxemburg supported revolutionary centralism. She believed that a centralized party was necessary to coordinate class struggle, but it must emerge organically from the self-activity of the masses. What she warned against was top-down power, advocating for internal democracy and constant dialogue between the party and the working class.
Both Luxemburg and Lenin saw centralized organization as essential to overthrow capitalism. In fact, she praised the revolutionary discipline of the Bolsheviks in 1917, writing:
Luxemburg diverged with Lenin arguing that while a vanguard was necessary, it should not be an elite cadre but a theoretically advanced section of the working class itself, emerging through struggle. However, both agreed the working class needed political leadership to avoid reformist pitfalls. Luxemburg’s Social Democracy and Communism stressed the party’s role in clarifying revolutionary goals.
Despite tactical some disagreements, Luxemburg and Lenin shared strategic unity and were in a fundamental agreement. Both rejected parliamentary reformism, insisting capitalism could only be overthrown through class struggle and proletarian dictatorship.
Yes it was blatantly false, so false in fact that you proceed to argue pretty much the point that in Luxemburgs view the role of the party is to organise the spontaneous strikes or workers into eventually general strikes, unlike Lenins idea where the party leaders whip the population into doing what they want. Simply put again Luxemburg and mensheviks argued for gradual revolution. Difference being that menshevisk also thought that russia needed to industrialize before that. both were far more democratic than lenin and bolshevism
Simply put, Luxemburg fundamentally agreed with Lenin, but her approach proved to be unworkable while Lenin’s tactics succeeded. BOTH ADVOCATED FOR REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE. Meanwhile, menshiviks were reformists akin to modern social democrats. The fact that you continue to misrepresent history here only further highlights that you’re not interested in a good faith discussion.
Well this is just ahistorical, what do you mean by proved to be unworkable? She was abandonded by the reformists who abandoned the movement as a whole. That does not mean that she was somehow wrong, she was abandoned. Mensheviks were marxists, social democrats today are not. Furthermore a bolshevik may consider a menshevik to be reformist, bolsheviks wanted the revolution before the industrialization. I dont understand why you believe that mensheviks opposed socialism after the industrialization.
edit: I should also point out how deeply marxist, in the sense that it was idea of marx, is the point that bourgeois revolution is necessary before the socialist one. Pure historical materialism.
Well this is just ahistorical, what do you mean by proved to be unworkable?
Remind me how it worked out in the end.
That does not mean that she was somehow wrong, she was abandoned.
Her approach failed, that’s the actual history.
Mensheviks were marxists, social democrats today are not
Marxism is revolutionary. Again, either you don’t understand what Marxism is, or you’re just trolling.
I should also point out how deeply marxist, in the sense that it was idea of marx, is the point that bourgeois revolution is necessary before the socialist one. Pure historical materialism.
You should let Vietnam and China know asap. Marxism isn’t dogmatic, which is evidently another thing you fail to understand. Maybe spend your time actually studying Marxism instead of arguing out of ignorance in public forums.
So just so I understand if there was any succesful organised revolution based on general strikes she would be right? It would have worked? Same stupid argument which you made could be made about anything that ended.
Her approach failed, so did bolshevism. I dont actually mean this, I want to show the stupidity of the claim.
Yes they advocated for bourgeois revolution before the socialist one.
Vietnam and Korea are good counter examples. The commities and democratic organization of the communists was very cool and developed during colonial periods. That does not mean that the idea of historical materialism is not deeply marxist. The contradictions which arise in a capitalist society between the classes give rise to the revolution.
So just so I understand if there was any succesful organised revolution based on general strikes she would be right? It would have worked? Same stupid argument which you made could be made about anything that ended.
We have a century of history now to look back at and see what types of organization succeed and what don’t. The history has very clearly proven Lenin to be right.
Her approach failed, so did bolshevism. I dont actually mean this, I want to show the stupidity of the claim.
All you’re showing here, once again, is that you just like to make absurd statements in place of having an actual reasoned argument.
That does not mean that the idea of historical materialism is not deeply marxist.
Nice straw man there, I never said anything of the sort. What I actually said, is that taking the writings of Marx dogmatically is contrary to Marxism which is a dialectical process.
ok sure, that does again not mean that Luxemburg was wrong.
See i tried to show that the historical argument that something ended, does not really mean much.
Yes I continued from the point of how deeply marxist the menshevik point was. It was direct historical materialism. Thats also why most marxists agreed with them on this. Also if you consider this a strawman then the cases of China and Vietnam which you mentioned hold no water since we agree on the necessity of contradictions arising in capitalism which are part of historical materialism.
Social democrats are organizing commities like the soviets and unions? Where?
The Luxemburg point was about the preindustrialised consensus. The point that only industrialized country should become socialist. She was also against the bolshevik centralized power structure. Like the mensheviks
Social democrats are reformists just as menshiviks are. The approach demonstrably does not work, and what it accomplishes in practice is perpetuation of capitalism.
Meanwhile, Luxemburg was very much not against centralized structure. You make blatantly false statements either because you’re ignorant or because you’re intentionally trying to misrepresent things.
Luxemburg and Lenin shared core Marxist commitments to revolution and socialism, but their views on centralization and the vanguard reflected nuanced disagreements within revolutionary strategy. Here’s how Luxemburg’s ideas aligned with, and diverged from, those of Lenin.
First thing to state is that Luxemburg supported revolutionary centralism. She believed that a centralized party was necessary to coordinate class struggle, but it must emerge organically from the self-activity of the masses. What she warned against was top-down power, advocating for internal democracy and constant dialogue between the party and the working class.
Both Luxemburg and Lenin saw centralized organization as essential to overthrow capitalism. In fact, she praised the revolutionary discipline of the Bolsheviks in 1917, writing:
Luxemburg diverged with Lenin arguing that while a vanguard was necessary, it should not be an elite cadre but a theoretically advanced section of the working class itself, emerging through struggle. However, both agreed the working class needed political leadership to avoid reformist pitfalls. Luxemburg’s Social Democracy and Communism stressed the party’s role in clarifying revolutionary goals.
Despite tactical some disagreements, Luxemburg and Lenin shared strategic unity and were in a fundamental agreement. Both rejected parliamentary reformism, insisting capitalism could only be overthrown through class struggle and proletarian dictatorship.
Yes it was blatantly false, so false in fact that you proceed to argue pretty much the point that in Luxemburgs view the role of the party is to organise the spontaneous strikes or workers into eventually general strikes, unlike Lenins idea where the party leaders whip the population into doing what they want. Simply put again Luxemburg and mensheviks argued for gradual revolution. Difference being that menshevisk also thought that russia needed to industrialize before that. both were far more democratic than lenin and bolshevism
Simply put, Luxemburg fundamentally agreed with Lenin, but her approach proved to be unworkable while Lenin’s tactics succeeded. BOTH ADVOCATED FOR REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE. Meanwhile, menshiviks were reformists akin to modern social democrats. The fact that you continue to misrepresent history here only further highlights that you’re not interested in a good faith discussion.
Well this is just ahistorical, what do you mean by proved to be unworkable? She was abandonded by the reformists who abandoned the movement as a whole. That does not mean that she was somehow wrong, she was abandoned. Mensheviks were marxists, social democrats today are not. Furthermore a bolshevik may consider a menshevik to be reformist, bolsheviks wanted the revolution before the industrialization. I dont understand why you believe that mensheviks opposed socialism after the industrialization.
edit: I should also point out how deeply marxist, in the sense that it was idea of marx, is the point that bourgeois revolution is necessary before the socialist one. Pure historical materialism.
Remind me how it worked out in the end.
Her approach failed, that’s the actual history.
Marxism is revolutionary. Again, either you don’t understand what Marxism is, or you’re just trolling.
You should let Vietnam and China know asap. Marxism isn’t dogmatic, which is evidently another thing you fail to understand. Maybe spend your time actually studying Marxism instead of arguing out of ignorance in public forums.
So just so I understand if there was any succesful organised revolution based on general strikes she would be right? It would have worked? Same stupid argument which you made could be made about anything that ended.
Her approach failed, so did bolshevism. I dont actually mean this, I want to show the stupidity of the claim.
Yes they advocated for bourgeois revolution before the socialist one.
Vietnam and Korea are good counter examples. The commities and democratic organization of the communists was very cool and developed during colonial periods. That does not mean that the idea of historical materialism is not deeply marxist. The contradictions which arise in a capitalist society between the classes give rise to the revolution.
We have a century of history now to look back at and see what types of organization succeed and what don’t. The history has very clearly proven Lenin to be right.
All you’re showing here, once again, is that you just like to make absurd statements in place of having an actual reasoned argument.
Nice straw man there, I never said anything of the sort. What I actually said, is that taking the writings of Marx dogmatically is contrary to Marxism which is a dialectical process.
ok sure, that does again not mean that Luxemburg was wrong.
See i tried to show that the historical argument that something ended, does not really mean much.
Yes I continued from the point of how deeply marxist the menshevik point was. It was direct historical materialism. Thats also why most marxists agreed with them on this. Also if you consider this a strawman then the cases of China and Vietnam which you mentioned hold no water since we agree on the necessity of contradictions arising in capitalism which are part of historical materialism.