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.
ok sure, that does again not mean that Luxemburg was wrong.
To sum up. Both Lenin and Luxemburg AGREED on the goals and general approach of the necessity of a revolution and the vanguard. They disagreed on the tactics of how to accomplish this goal that they agreed on. We now have over a century of history to look back at and decide which approach was correct by looking which approach has successfully accomplished these goals historically. Lenin was proven right and Luxemburg was proven wrong.
This is not a slight against Luxemburg because nobody knew what the correct way to organize would be when it was being done for the first time. However, there is no excuse for people who are unable to examine history and analyze it critically today.
Yes I continued from the point of how deeply marxist the menshevik point was.
And I’ve explained in detail why menshiviks were not in fact Marxists.
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.
Yeah she cared far more for the democratic organization. The bolshevik model tried to justify itself as only transitional and so directing the mass of proletariat which is too stupid to understand its own needs was sold as somehow getting closer to the model where they own means of their production and all of a sudden know exactly what they need.
Again the historical argument is so weird. Literally the countries like Vietnam and Korea had solid democratic organisation by commities not dissimilar to initial soviets. They only moved to centralization after being attacked by us. They were not like bolsheviks before.
If lenins goal was to have workers who own their means of production, in the marxist sense, he failed. The vanguard party never went away, ideal was not accomplished. In this same sense that you use Stalin was proved right, Khruschev, Brezhnev Gorbachev just because during their administration bolshevism existed. Luxemburg being proved wrong I also dont understand, how is it that if the party cowardly abandons its cause it somehow disproves that cause?
This also makes it seem like you actually want some level of dogmatism. Assuming that Lenins idea of revolution is the correct one.
yes you said that mensheviks are not revolutionary, and the only argument is that they want first a bourgeois revolution to happen before a socialist one.
so we dont agree that historical materialism necessitates contradictions of capitalist society to give rise to socialist revolution?
Yeah she cared far more for the democratic organization. The bolshevik model tried to justify itself as only transitional and so directing the mass of proletariat which is too stupid to understand its own needs was sold as somehow getting closer to the model where they own means of their production and all of a sudden know exactly what they need.
It’s the height of absurdity to claim that Bolsheviks didn’t care about democratic organization.
Again the historical argument is so weird. Literally the countries like Vietnam and Korea had solid democratic organisation by commities not dissimilar to initial soviets. They only moved to centralization after being attacked by us. They were not like bolsheviks before.
On which principles did they organize, Lenin’s or Luxemburg’s. You’re making my point for me here.
If lenins goal was to have workers who own their means of production, in the marxist sense, he failed. The vanguard party never went away, ideal was not accomplished.
That’s an absurdly infantile argument. The reality is that the USSR existed under threat from the overarching capitalist world throughout its whole existence and was not allowed to develop peacefully. It was invaded by western powers in 1918, then plunged into WW2 a couple of decades later, and then into Cold War. Claiming that it did not live up to Platonic ideals of communism under these conditions is inane to say the least.
Luxemburg being proved wrong I also dont understand, how is it that if the party cowardly abandons its cause it somehow disproves that cause?
Meanwhile, Luxemburg’s idealism gave us the nazis in the end. Had the German communists followed Russian example, then the history may have turned out completely differently. There may not have been a WW2, Europe would’ve become communist, and the US would’ve remained an isolated regional power which would’ve likely turned communist as well to follow the rest of the world.
This also makes it seem like you actually want some level of dogmatism. Assuming that Lenins idea of revolution is the correct one.
Looking at what has worked historically is the opposite of dogmatism.
yes you said that mensheviks are not revolutionary, and the only argument is that they want first a bourgeois revolution to happen before a socialist one
The fact that you don’t understand the absurdity of the sentence you wrote is incredible.
so we dont agree that historical materialism necessitates contradictions of capitalist society to give rise to socialist revolution?
I’ve already addressed this in an earlier reply. You can feel free to reread it.
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.
To sum up. Both Lenin and Luxemburg AGREED on the goals and general approach of the necessity of a revolution and the vanguard. They disagreed on the tactics of how to accomplish this goal that they agreed on. We now have over a century of history to look back at and decide which approach was correct by looking which approach has successfully accomplished these goals historically. Lenin was proven right and Luxemburg was proven wrong.
This is not a slight against Luxemburg because nobody knew what the correct way to organize would be when it was being done for the first time. However, there is no excuse for people who are unable to examine history and analyze it critically today.
And I’ve explained in detail why menshiviks were not in fact Marxists.
Incorrect
Yeah she cared far more for the democratic organization. The bolshevik model tried to justify itself as only transitional and so directing the mass of proletariat which is too stupid to understand its own needs was sold as somehow getting closer to the model where they own means of their production and all of a sudden know exactly what they need.
Again the historical argument is so weird. Literally the countries like Vietnam and Korea had solid democratic organisation by commities not dissimilar to initial soviets. They only moved to centralization after being attacked by us. They were not like bolsheviks before.
If lenins goal was to have workers who own their means of production, in the marxist sense, he failed. The vanguard party never went away, ideal was not accomplished. In this same sense that you use Stalin was proved right, Khruschev, Brezhnev Gorbachev just because during their administration bolshevism existed. Luxemburg being proved wrong I also dont understand, how is it that if the party cowardly abandons its cause it somehow disproves that cause?
This also makes it seem like you actually want some level of dogmatism. Assuming that Lenins idea of revolution is the correct one.
yes you said that mensheviks are not revolutionary, and the only argument is that they want first a bourgeois revolution to happen before a socialist one.
so we dont agree that historical materialism necessitates contradictions of capitalist society to give rise to socialist revolution?
It’s the height of absurdity to claim that Bolsheviks didn’t care about democratic organization.
On which principles did they organize, Lenin’s or Luxemburg’s. You’re making my point for me here.
That’s an absurdly infantile argument. The reality is that the USSR existed under threat from the overarching capitalist world throughout its whole existence and was not allowed to develop peacefully. It was invaded by western powers in 1918, then plunged into WW2 a couple of decades later, and then into Cold War. Claiming that it did not live up to Platonic ideals of communism under these conditions is inane to say the least.
Meanwhile, Luxemburg’s idealism gave us the nazis in the end. Had the German communists followed Russian example, then the history may have turned out completely differently. There may not have been a WW2, Europe would’ve become communist, and the US would’ve remained an isolated regional power which would’ve likely turned communist as well to follow the rest of the world.
Looking at what has worked historically is the opposite of dogmatism.
The fact that you don’t understand the absurdity of the sentence you wrote is incredible.
I’ve already addressed this in an earlier reply. You can feel free to reread it.