«La concepción de Rosa Luxemburg, acerca de las estructuras de las organizaciones revolucionarias -que debían construirse de abajo hacia arriba, sobre una base consistentemente democrática-, se adapta a las necesidades de los movimientos de los trabajadores en los países avanzados mucho más estrechamente que la concepción de Lenin de 1902 a 1904, que los estalinistas de todo el mundo copiaron, agregando un toque burocrático.Ella comprendió más claramente que nadie que la estructura del partido revolucionario y las relaciones mutuas entre el partido y la clase tendrían gran influencia, no sólo en la lucha contra el capitalismo y para el poder de los trabajadores sino también sobre el propio destino de este poder. Estableció proféticamente que sin la más amplia democracia de los trabajadores, ""funcionarios detrás de su escritorio"" tomarían el poder político de manos de los trabajadores. "el socialismo no se puede otorgar o implantar por medio de un decreto".»
Born in Palestine to Zionist parents in 1917, Ygael Gluckstein became a Trotskyist during the 1930s and played a leading role in the attempt to forge a movement uniting Arab and Jewish workers. At the end of of the Second World war, seeing that the victory of the Zionists was more and more inevitable, he moved to Britain and adopted the pseudonym Tony Cliff.
In the late 1940s he developed the theory that Russia wasn’t a workers’ state but a form of bureaucratic state capitalism, a theory which has characterised the tendency with which he was associated for the remaining five decades of his life. Although he broke from “orthodox Trotskyism” after being bureaucratically excluded from the Fourth International in 1950, he always considered himself to be a Trotskyist although he was also open to other influences within the Marxist tradition.
i didn't read this book to find out about luxemburg but rather to find out what tony cliff thought i needed to know about luxemburg in 1959. at that time the british swp was a much more heterodox organization and had not yet made the turn to a more centralized and disciplined org - this would occur in the late 70's when the writing of his lenin bio. back in 1959 the approach to organization was much looser as fit the conditions then. i think this fits the conditions now as well more than the post 70's swp model. besides all that, i got little out of this book. it's simply an historical relic. the conclusion lays out, albeit obliquely and with the benefit of hindsight, the kind of org that cliff thought the swp was and should be at that time. one that was not rigid not dogmatic and prised, above all else, rigorous questioning of everything by using the marxist method. luxemburg (via cliff) embodied a specific independence of thought that is much needed within the left of today. not simply so that we may emulate luxemburg and be non dogmatic or sectarian but rather that we may perhaps one day finish the project that she devoted her life to.
برای کسانی که میخوان آگاهی مختصری نسبت به اندیشه و زمینهی اجتماعی - تاریخی گفتمان انقلاب و رفرم و همچنین تاریخی مختصر از سرشت و سرنوشت رزا لوکزامبورگ رو بدونن کتاب حاضر بسیار مفیده.
از مهمترین فصول کتاب [ حداقل برای من ] جزوات رزا لوکزامبورگ راجع به لنین و دیکتاتوری اقلیتی روشنفکر در روسیه و حاکمیت متوسل به زور و استبداد در روسیهست. تصویر لوکزامبورگ از حکومت ایدئال سوسیالیستی نه تنها منطبق با اون چه که در روسیهی دوران حکومت لنین میگذره نیست بلکه سوسیالیسم حقیقی مبتنی بر تن دادن به خواستههای دموکراتیک کارگران و دهقانان و وجود داشتن آزادی فکر و اندیشه و آزادی بیان این اندیشهها در رادیکالترین شکل خودشه.
همچنین پیشگویی لوکزامبورگ از پدید اومدن خشونتی ارتجاعی در آیندهی آلمان ( که در قالب ظهور فاشیسم متجلی خواهد شد ) و دلایل اون بسیار جایگاه این فرد رو در تاریخ اندیشهی مارکسیستی مهم میکنه.
Kann man mal lesen. Nichts bahnbrechendes, aber ne solide Einführung ins Leben und Werk - zumal nicht unkritisch. Bisschen trotzkistisches Gelaber drin, aber es hält sich vergleichsweise in Grenzen.
Basically only read this cause it's short and I want to read Luxemberg's writings but I fear I won't be able to understand the context in which she writes, so I figured it's best to read other peoples analysis of her writings before I attempt it myself.