What do you think?
Rate this book
The Russian Revolution/Leninism or Marxism?
The two works included here are critical appraisals of Lenin's penchant for personal dictatorship over his party, the dictatorship of his Central Committee over its locals, and the dictatorship of his party over the working class.
Hardcover
First published November 15, 1961
About the author
Rosa Luxemburg
498 books889 followersRosa Luxemburg (Rosalia Luxemburg, Polish: Róża Luksemburg) was a Marxist theorist, philosopher, economist and activist of Polish Jewish descent who became a naturalized German citizen. She was successively a member of the Social Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania, the Social Democratic Party of Germany(SPD), the Independent Social Democratic Party and the Communist Party of Germany.
In 1915, after the SPD supported German involvement in World War I, she co-founded, with Karl Liebknecht, the anti-war Spartakusbund (Spartacist League). On 1 January 1919 the Spartacist League became the Communist Party of Germany (KPD). In November 1918, during the German Revolution she founded the Die Rote Fahne (The Red Flag), the central organ of the Spartacist movement.
She regarded the Spartacist uprising of January 1919 in Berlin as a blunder, but supported it after Liebknecht ordered it without her knowledge. When the revolt was crushed by the social democrat government and the Freikorps (WWI veterans defending the Weimar Republic), Luxemburg, Liebknecht and some of their supporters were captured and murdered. Luxemburg was drowned in the Landwehr Canal in Berlin. After their deaths, Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht became martyrs for Marxists. According to the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, commemoration of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht continues to play an important role among the German far-left.
In 1915, after the SPD supported German involvement in World War I, she co-founded, with Karl Liebknecht, the anti-war Spartakusbund (Spartacist League). On 1 January 1919 the Spartacist League became the Communist Party of Germany (KPD). In November 1918, during the German Revolution she founded the Die Rote Fahne (The Red Flag), the central organ of the Spartacist movement.
She regarded the Spartacist uprising of January 1919 in Berlin as a blunder, but supported it after Liebknecht ordered it without her knowledge. When the revolt was crushed by the social democrat government and the Freikorps (WWI veterans defending the Weimar Republic), Luxemburg, Liebknecht and some of their supporters were captured and murdered. Luxemburg was drowned in the Landwehr Canal in Berlin. After their deaths, Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht became martyrs for Marxists. According to the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, commemoration of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht continues to play an important role among the German far-left.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
September 30, 2018
I so very much abhor this ideology that reading this is outright painfull. DNF at very early stage. Not recommended to anyone sane.
Remember: revolution is the very worst idea ever, which should be abolished somewhere alongside with global world war and cannibalism. People should have known better all along.
Q:
The Russian Revolution is the mightiest event of the World War. (c) Is it just me ot is that a bona fide admission of accepting funds from foreign countries/powers to destroy Russia? Reminds me of the ISIS development/funding/training thing, the moderate rebelling ideas and other trashy BS. People do need to learn history, the real one, to stop repeating the same idiocies each century.
Q:
In Russia, the problem could only be posed. It could not be solved in Russia. (c) So fuck it, I say. What was the point of ruining the Russian Empire, that advancing economy, destroy all those lives, twist all those people beyond recognition?
Remember: revolution is the very worst idea ever, which should be abolished somewhere alongside with global world war and cannibalism. People should have known better all along.
Q:
The Russian Revolution is the mightiest event of the World War. (c) Is it just me ot is that a bona fide admission of accepting funds from foreign countries/powers to destroy Russia? Reminds me of the ISIS development/funding/training thing, the moderate rebelling ideas and other trashy BS. People do need to learn history, the real one, to stop repeating the same idiocies each century.
Q:
In Russia, the problem could only be posed. It could not be solved in Russia. (c) So fuck it, I say. What was the point of ruining the Russian Empire, that advancing economy, destroy all those lives, twist all those people beyond recognition?
September 24, 2018
Rosa Luxemburg is a hero of mine but it took a while to find something of hers which she wrote herself, which is straightforward and digestible. Her economic writings are cogent --but as unwholesome as that cultivated by any male in that field.
It is not lack of pith or fiber which spoils them but instead a lack of hindsight (she was not allowed the long lifespan many other economists enjoy). She was thus, not allowed time to revise the flaws in her economic thought and not allowed the maturity which might have removed the tint of venom in the apple she offered. I speak of 'The Accumulation of Capital', a tome said to be her masterwork. I personally found it stodgy and stultifying.
Disappointed by that recent read, I now turn to her more political writings starting with this succinct title. Though a much shorter treatise of only 120 pages, here is the firebrand Luxemburg I seek. Here is the fearless, revolutionary Rosa, turning her burning eyes to non-financial matters. Here is where she shines better; and here is where (in a review of mine) I can praise her at full length.
Scattered throughout this tiny work (just as found scattered through 'Accumulation') are the customary flashes of her particular mental brilliance. At all times, Rosa makes logical arguments, arguments obdurate as granite, but in every point she also makes arguments of deep conviction, arguments which emanate passion (perhaps too much passion infuses her dishes with the pungency I mention above --pepper on cold meat like economics, doesn't add appeal).
But Rosa was not a stiff or limited Marxist doctrinaire; as many of her loudest enemies discovered, to their cost. She could not be shouted down in either economics nor history; and in this book she shows she can not be browbeaten in political science either. Here, she excels; here, she meets bludgeon with rapier.
The topical content of the work is fascinating: 'how exactly should a socialist uprising be handled so as not to fall into dictatorship'? 'What should the French have done better (to avoid Napoleon)', 'what ought the Britons have done (to avoid Cromwell)', and 'what should the Bolsheviks then do in their turn, to avoid dictators of their own'?
Back to her writing style: in 'Accumulation' you could see her matter-of-factly supply evidence from Europe's agricultural past to solidify her economic calculations; though her delivery was laced through with acidic, personal disdain for the opponents of Marx. It was never more an interval of a few pages before her feminine savor of emotion --her delight in, (and her addiction to) indignant wrath-- cracks out with a whip, or a kick, or an insult. She spoke with respect towards Malthus, Ricardo, or their followers --but practically no chapter concludes without withering, scornful laughter directed to their lintels.
In 'Leninism', where she discusses matters of political procedure --as usual, she again exposes that fine, astute, and historically-informed brain. Again as usual, she bats down the ideas of her opponent (Lenin) and again as usual, she demonstrates that deep familiarity with history--the English and French Revolutions particularly--to buttress her rhetoric.
But what is different here is her exhibiting far more restraint and temperance in her words, as she addresses her then-living colleague. She patiently honeys her viper's tongue as she lowers the axe on Lenin's colossal mistakes. She boldly prescribes the remedy too --not just passively describing the illness; (as in her economic writing). She speaks out here with the authority of the fighter and revolutionary she herself was.
This was my more practical reason for seeking out this obscure title. How does she successfully contradict Lenin? I knew from other studies that she had done so; but not how she had done so.
The issue is still of fervent interest today, because even in this modern day you will encounter dunderheads who consider communism and bolshevism one-and-the-same-thing (far too conveniently damning one as they damn the other).
But, they were not self-same. This is the point of Rosa's writing. They are distinguishable from each other. The Bolshevists were nothing more than an extremist splinter-group in the months leading up to March 1917.
In those months, three specific intellectual blunders were allowed to strike fissures in Marxist ideology as applied on the ground and in the street. Rosa explores each of these blunders in turn, (for details you can certainly contact me to review them for you). Anyway, the points Rosa makes, are made; and are held; and are worth knowing about.
The remaining question to ask myself as I turn the back cover over and lay the book down --moving on to other works--is merely this: does the title find a permanent place on my humble bookshelf for Russian Studies?
Answer: for a short time only. I prefer it to her economic thought, as indicated above. But the ideas are concise enough for me to recall easily enough in future and more enjoyment is likely to be had as I plumb through the rest of her oratory and perhaps that of Karl Liebknecht, who's body was found with hers.
What else is there to say, but: gad, what a woman!
It is not lack of pith or fiber which spoils them but instead a lack of hindsight (she was not allowed the long lifespan many other economists enjoy). She was thus, not allowed time to revise the flaws in her economic thought and not allowed the maturity which might have removed the tint of venom in the apple she offered. I speak of 'The Accumulation of Capital', a tome said to be her masterwork. I personally found it stodgy and stultifying.
Disappointed by that recent read, I now turn to her more political writings starting with this succinct title. Though a much shorter treatise of only 120 pages, here is the firebrand Luxemburg I seek. Here is the fearless, revolutionary Rosa, turning her burning eyes to non-financial matters. Here is where she shines better; and here is where (in a review of mine) I can praise her at full length.
Scattered throughout this tiny work (just as found scattered through 'Accumulation') are the customary flashes of her particular mental brilliance. At all times, Rosa makes logical arguments, arguments obdurate as granite, but in every point she also makes arguments of deep conviction, arguments which emanate passion (perhaps too much passion infuses her dishes with the pungency I mention above --pepper on cold meat like economics, doesn't add appeal).
But Rosa was not a stiff or limited Marxist doctrinaire; as many of her loudest enemies discovered, to their cost. She could not be shouted down in either economics nor history; and in this book she shows she can not be browbeaten in political science either. Here, she excels; here, she meets bludgeon with rapier.
The topical content of the work is fascinating: 'how exactly should a socialist uprising be handled so as not to fall into dictatorship'? 'What should the French have done better (to avoid Napoleon)', 'what ought the Britons have done (to avoid Cromwell)', and 'what should the Bolsheviks then do in their turn, to avoid dictators of their own'?
Back to her writing style: in 'Accumulation' you could see her matter-of-factly supply evidence from Europe's agricultural past to solidify her economic calculations; though her delivery was laced through with acidic, personal disdain for the opponents of Marx. It was never more an interval of a few pages before her feminine savor of emotion --her delight in, (and her addiction to) indignant wrath-- cracks out with a whip, or a kick, or an insult. She spoke with respect towards Malthus, Ricardo, or their followers --but practically no chapter concludes without withering, scornful laughter directed to their lintels.
In 'Leninism', where she discusses matters of political procedure --as usual, she again exposes that fine, astute, and historically-informed brain. Again as usual, she bats down the ideas of her opponent (Lenin) and again as usual, she demonstrates that deep familiarity with history--the English and French Revolutions particularly--to buttress her rhetoric.
But what is different here is her exhibiting far more restraint and temperance in her words, as she addresses her then-living colleague. She patiently honeys her viper's tongue as she lowers the axe on Lenin's colossal mistakes. She boldly prescribes the remedy too --not just passively describing the illness; (as in her economic writing). She speaks out here with the authority of the fighter and revolutionary she herself was.
This was my more practical reason for seeking out this obscure title. How does she successfully contradict Lenin? I knew from other studies that she had done so; but not how she had done so.
The issue is still of fervent interest today, because even in this modern day you will encounter dunderheads who consider communism and bolshevism one-and-the-same-thing (far too conveniently damning one as they damn the other).
But, they were not self-same. This is the point of Rosa's writing. They are distinguishable from each other. The Bolshevists were nothing more than an extremist splinter-group in the months leading up to March 1917.
In those months, three specific intellectual blunders were allowed to strike fissures in Marxist ideology as applied on the ground and in the street. Rosa explores each of these blunders in turn, (for details you can certainly contact me to review them for you). Anyway, the points Rosa makes, are made; and are held; and are worth knowing about.
The remaining question to ask myself as I turn the back cover over and lay the book down --moving on to other works--is merely this: does the title find a permanent place on my humble bookshelf for Russian Studies?
Answer: for a short time only. I prefer it to her economic thought, as indicated above. But the ideas are concise enough for me to recall easily enough in future and more enjoyment is likely to be had as I plumb through the rest of her oratory and perhaps that of Karl Liebknecht, who's body was found with hers.
What else is there to say, but: gad, what a woman!
September 9, 2007
Despite the fact that the title "Leninism or Marxism?" wasn't the original title of the book, rather the anti-communist left at Michigan State felt it appropriate to change the title ("Leninism" was a word invented by Zinoviev in 1924). The criticisms of Luxemburg come from an international socialist position on revolutionary democracy, and most of her ideas are worthy of reflection for all revolutionaries.
Read
March 10, 2012"historically, the errors committed by a truly revolutionary movement are infinitely more fruitful than the infallibility of the cleverest central committee."
February 9, 2012
I find the theories of revolution to be the least useful branch of Marxist theory, and as such, this slim volume really doesn't add much to Marxist theory in general. Her essay on the Russian Revolution won't break any new ground for contemporary readers (and I'm doubtful that it was that incisive when it was initially written). Her essay "Leninism or Marxism?" (not the original title) is worth the read if only for the necessary reminder that there was another path for revolutionary socialism to follow, one that is far more organic and democratic than the mechanistic and centralized schematics proferred by the Bolsheviks.
Read
May 30, 2025I feel compelled to defend this because of Lukacs' put-down, even though there's not really a point in replying to a dead guy about an irrelevant critique of events long past.
Rosa is here holding the Bolsheviks to their own democratic standards, judging by what Lenin described in "State in Revolution" for example. In "What does the Spartacus league want?" it's evident that Rosa came around on the Workers' Councils (aka the soviets). What she opposes is that the Central Committee is skimping on its meetings, and making it impossible for the proletariat to vote.
In "Left Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder" Lenin says:
"To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted and complex than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to renounce in advance any change of tack, or any utilisation of a conflict of interests (even if temporary) among one’s enemies, or any conciliation or compromise with possible allies (even if they are temporary, unstable, vacillating or conditional allies)—is that not ridiculous in the extreme? Is it not like making a difficult ascent of an unexplored and hitherto inaccessible mountain and refusing in advance ever to move in zigzags, ever to retrace one’s steps, or ever to abandon a course once selected, and to try others?"
Rosa's point is that after the revolution, the question of reform or revolution is no longer relevant, because the revolution has happened, the revolutionaries are vindicated. Experience can carry you no further, because nobody has transformed a capitalist society into a communist one before. It is pitiful to clamp down on spontaneity and experimentation right when they become the most essential, to lose faith in the proletariat's ability to transform society after letting them decide based on not only propaganda but also experience throughout the course of the developing revolutionary scenario. Russia had reached a stage where no "program" can do any good. Additionally, as Rosa explains in "What does the Spartacus League want?" cutting off the proletariat from decision-making and active participation in transforming society, thrusting them into a role of passivity and complacency under the rule of the Central Committee, would only cause these capacities to atrophy, when rather it is time for them, when there is a need for them to develop exponentially. Thus it is an issue of elitism and repression, which as Rosa suggests in "Leninism or Marxism?" is its own form of opportunism, and not merely centralized organization. Rosa worries an excess of enthusiasm for centralization without due caution risks or implies the former.
As for her criticism of the Bolsheviks' compromising tactics (i.e. on the agrarian and national questions) it seems clear that she is criticizing them on principle, in other words in the sense that they may have been necessary (or they may not have been) but this does not make them generalizable. Further, in "Revolutionary Hangover" for example Rosa makes it clear that she recognizes that a "failure," a routing of the revolution, can be seen in the light of setting the stage for further development of the revolution itself. However, one cannot judge every failure and every compromise as something other than a failure or compromise insofar as they become redeemed by later events, which is what Lukacs attempts to do to vilify every decision of the Bolsheviks. This divorces the terms failure and compromise of all content, and makes it seem like, you can deliberately do the opposite of what you know the right thing to do is, so long as later it turns out to have led to a positive outcome, no matter how many steps removed the good outcome is from the initial failure, no matter how the compromise is related to the success. As the Frankfurt school understood means should be suited to their ends. Lenin does a fine enough job of explaining the reasoning behind signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. There was really no choice. However, it is impossible to sidestep Rosa's linking the Bolshevik's conception of the national question to the fact that they handed over *non-reactionary* workers into the hands of imperialists because they shared territory with bourgeois nationalists; essentially the Bolsheviks opened the revolutionary movement to becoming divided and conquered. "Self-determination" does the work of veiling counter revolutionary maneuvering just as "freedom of criticism," although in this case it's a veil the Bolsheviks unwittingly produce for the benefit of their own political opponents. Yes, self-determination, yes, freedom of criticism, but is that actually what's taking place, or is it reaction dressed up with a nicer name?
Rosa is here holding the Bolsheviks to their own democratic standards, judging by what Lenin described in "State in Revolution" for example. In "What does the Spartacus league want?" it's evident that Rosa came around on the Workers' Councils (aka the soviets). What she opposes is that the Central Committee is skimping on its meetings, and making it impossible for the proletariat to vote.
In "Left Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder" Lenin says:
"To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted and complex than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to renounce in advance any change of tack, or any utilisation of a conflict of interests (even if temporary) among one’s enemies, or any conciliation or compromise with possible allies (even if they are temporary, unstable, vacillating or conditional allies)—is that not ridiculous in the extreme? Is it not like making a difficult ascent of an unexplored and hitherto inaccessible mountain and refusing in advance ever to move in zigzags, ever to retrace one’s steps, or ever to abandon a course once selected, and to try others?"
Rosa's point is that after the revolution, the question of reform or revolution is no longer relevant, because the revolution has happened, the revolutionaries are vindicated. Experience can carry you no further, because nobody has transformed a capitalist society into a communist one before. It is pitiful to clamp down on spontaneity and experimentation right when they become the most essential, to lose faith in the proletariat's ability to transform society after letting them decide based on not only propaganda but also experience throughout the course of the developing revolutionary scenario. Russia had reached a stage where no "program" can do any good. Additionally, as Rosa explains in "What does the Spartacus League want?" cutting off the proletariat from decision-making and active participation in transforming society, thrusting them into a role of passivity and complacency under the rule of the Central Committee, would only cause these capacities to atrophy, when rather it is time for them, when there is a need for them to develop exponentially. Thus it is an issue of elitism and repression, which as Rosa suggests in "Leninism or Marxism?" is its own form of opportunism, and not merely centralized organization. Rosa worries an excess of enthusiasm for centralization without due caution risks or implies the former.
As for her criticism of the Bolsheviks' compromising tactics (i.e. on the agrarian and national questions) it seems clear that she is criticizing them on principle, in other words in the sense that they may have been necessary (or they may not have been) but this does not make them generalizable. Further, in "Revolutionary Hangover" for example Rosa makes it clear that she recognizes that a "failure," a routing of the revolution, can be seen in the light of setting the stage for further development of the revolution itself. However, one cannot judge every failure and every compromise as something other than a failure or compromise insofar as they become redeemed by later events, which is what Lukacs attempts to do to vilify every decision of the Bolsheviks. This divorces the terms failure and compromise of all content, and makes it seem like, you can deliberately do the opposite of what you know the right thing to do is, so long as later it turns out to have led to a positive outcome, no matter how many steps removed the good outcome is from the initial failure, no matter how the compromise is related to the success. As the Frankfurt school understood means should be suited to their ends. Lenin does a fine enough job of explaining the reasoning behind signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. There was really no choice. However, it is impossible to sidestep Rosa's linking the Bolshevik's conception of the national question to the fact that they handed over *non-reactionary* workers into the hands of imperialists because they shared territory with bourgeois nationalists; essentially the Bolsheviks opened the revolutionary movement to becoming divided and conquered. "Self-determination" does the work of veiling counter revolutionary maneuvering just as "freedom of criticism," although in this case it's a veil the Bolsheviks unwittingly produce for the benefit of their own political opponents. Yes, self-determination, yes, freedom of criticism, but is that actually what's taking place, or is it reaction dressed up with a nicer name?
February 21, 2018
The Russian Revolution and Leninism or Marxism
A critical study of the October Revolution seems to be incomplete without reading Rosa Luxemburg’s account of the dictatorship of the proletariat under the Bolshevik Party in Russia. Luxemburg does not present herself as a detached observer; instead, she probes into the politics of the cultural and material concerns of the period to offer quite a few fresh perspectives of the revolution. Discerningly methodical in her commentary, she marshals her arguments and observations into a coherent discourse. In compliance with Lenin’s worldview, Luxemburg is of the opinion that the modern industrial/capitalist society cannot be fundamentally reformed or improved upon without a social revolution. Acknowledging that the October Revolution set the wheels rolling for a classless society, Luxemburg refuses to accept it as the archetype of societal transformation that the immanent spirit of the October Revolution timelessly inspires. The Bolsheviks addressed the grievances of the people and helped to establish the party after the revolution. But Lenin’s opposition to bourgeoisie democracy essentially occluded the formation of the socialist democracy which, according to Luxemburg, begins simultaneously “with the destruction of the class rule and [of] the construction of socialism” (p. 77). Withering away of the State, after the dictatorship of the proletariat, is perhaps the most important step towards realizing the socialist goal of the revolution. Luxemburg’s critique of the October Revolution rests precisely on the policies undertaken by the Bolshevik Party, under the leadership of Lenin, to construct and restructure a classless society.
First and foremost, Luxemburg is not in agreement with Trotsky that the revolution generated a certain political maturity among the mass. The classless elite of the Bolshevik Party, namely the Central Committee, who directed the mass and channelized the energy in the streets to overthrow the provisional government in its subsequent attempt to seize the lands, failed in “socialization of the agrarian production” (p. 45). She points to the hierarchical structure prevalent among those to whom the lands were redistributed. The breaking up of the large estates to medium and small estates concentrated the power in the hands of the bourgeoisie of the villages. These individuals pledged support to the party and reaped the benefit of the agrarian revolution. Interestingly, Luxemburg’s aversion to the hierarchical structure is further brought to light when she dismisses the centralized, regimented leadership of the Bolshevik Party. She trusts and appreciates the spontaneity of the masses that stand at odds with the centralized party structure preferred by Lenin. It is pertinent here to go back to Althusser’s essay “Marxism and Humanism” where he avers that the second phase which ends with the dictatorship of the proletariat initiates socialist humanism—a classless society for all people. As I understand, Luxemburg prioritizes the people over the party, and unflinchingly asserts that revolutionary tactics should ascertain the majority’s support towards the revolution (p. 39). In what is perhaps the most irreconcilable difference between Lenin and Luxemburg is that the entire left fraternity all over the world even today looks for one definite answer regarding the national question. If the leftists in Taiwan have developed unbridgeable differences among themselves, as pointed out by Wing-kwong, then the Left Front leaders in India are believed to be conniving with the Chinese forces during 1962 Sino-India War. The internationalism that Lenin foregrounds aims at cooperation between the advanced nations and backward nations. It remains to be seen whether the proletariats of various nations adhere to their respective national identities or relinquish their national identity to represent an international consciousness in favour of socialism.
A critical study of the October Revolution seems to be incomplete without reading Rosa Luxemburg’s account of the dictatorship of the proletariat under the Bolshevik Party in Russia. Luxemburg does not present herself as a detached observer; instead, she probes into the politics of the cultural and material concerns of the period to offer quite a few fresh perspectives of the revolution. Discerningly methodical in her commentary, she marshals her arguments and observations into a coherent discourse. In compliance with Lenin’s worldview, Luxemburg is of the opinion that the modern industrial/capitalist society cannot be fundamentally reformed or improved upon without a social revolution. Acknowledging that the October Revolution set the wheels rolling for a classless society, Luxemburg refuses to accept it as the archetype of societal transformation that the immanent spirit of the October Revolution timelessly inspires. The Bolsheviks addressed the grievances of the people and helped to establish the party after the revolution. But Lenin’s opposition to bourgeoisie democracy essentially occluded the formation of the socialist democracy which, according to Luxemburg, begins simultaneously “with the destruction of the class rule and [of] the construction of socialism” (p. 77). Withering away of the State, after the dictatorship of the proletariat, is perhaps the most important step towards realizing the socialist goal of the revolution. Luxemburg’s critique of the October Revolution rests precisely on the policies undertaken by the Bolshevik Party, under the leadership of Lenin, to construct and restructure a classless society.
First and foremost, Luxemburg is not in agreement with Trotsky that the revolution generated a certain political maturity among the mass. The classless elite of the Bolshevik Party, namely the Central Committee, who directed the mass and channelized the energy in the streets to overthrow the provisional government in its subsequent attempt to seize the lands, failed in “socialization of the agrarian production” (p. 45). She points to the hierarchical structure prevalent among those to whom the lands were redistributed. The breaking up of the large estates to medium and small estates concentrated the power in the hands of the bourgeoisie of the villages. These individuals pledged support to the party and reaped the benefit of the agrarian revolution. Interestingly, Luxemburg’s aversion to the hierarchical structure is further brought to light when she dismisses the centralized, regimented leadership of the Bolshevik Party. She trusts and appreciates the spontaneity of the masses that stand at odds with the centralized party structure preferred by Lenin. It is pertinent here to go back to Althusser’s essay “Marxism and Humanism” where he avers that the second phase which ends with the dictatorship of the proletariat initiates socialist humanism—a classless society for all people. As I understand, Luxemburg prioritizes the people over the party, and unflinchingly asserts that revolutionary tactics should ascertain the majority’s support towards the revolution (p. 39). In what is perhaps the most irreconcilable difference between Lenin and Luxemburg is that the entire left fraternity all over the world even today looks for one definite answer regarding the national question. If the leftists in Taiwan have developed unbridgeable differences among themselves, as pointed out by Wing-kwong, then the Left Front leaders in India are believed to be conniving with the Chinese forces during 1962 Sino-India War. The internationalism that Lenin foregrounds aims at cooperation between the advanced nations and backward nations. It remains to be seen whether the proletariats of various nations adhere to their respective national identities or relinquish their national identity to represent an international consciousness in favour of socialism.
July 3, 2023
This is effectively two long articles combined in one small book, and re-reading it after many years, I can now understand it in a different light than before.
Rosa Luxemburg has been claimed by many competing left groups ranging from moderate Social Democrats to Trotskyists and Stalinists. The essays here provide arguments for all sides. For example, the uncompleted book that constitutes ‘The Russian Revolution’ is full of praise for Lenin and the Bolsheviks. And its criticisms largely come from the left, not the right. Luxemburg opposed early Bolshevik decisions to give land to the peasants (she proposes a kind of collectivization instead). And she absolutely detests the Bolshevik decision to support the right of nations to self-determination. (On this later point she had a history: she was an opponent of Polish independence even as leader of one of Poland’s Social Democratic parties.)
But she also comes down hard on the Bolsheviks for their decision to disperse the elected Constituent Assembly in early 1918, and for their refusal to guarantee freedom of the press and the right to assembly. It’s a mixed bag, and it’s incomplete. There are many “notes to self” throughout.
The second article was written a decade and a half earlier and it is Luxemburg’s answer to Lenin’s proposals regarding the structure of the Russian Social Democratic Party. Lenin was advocating a kind of ‘ultra-centralisation’ which Luxemburg opposed. She was far more convinced that the masses on their own could create the revolution without the help of an all-powerful, all-knowing Central Committee. The last line of the book has become very well known: ‘Historically, the errors committed by a truly revolutionary movement are infinitely more fruitful than the infallibility of the cleverest Central Committee.’
A book as complicated as its author, with arguments to justify many interpretations — but recommended reading nonetheless.
Rosa Luxemburg has been claimed by many competing left groups ranging from moderate Social Democrats to Trotskyists and Stalinists. The essays here provide arguments for all sides. For example, the uncompleted book that constitutes ‘The Russian Revolution’ is full of praise for Lenin and the Bolsheviks. And its criticisms largely come from the left, not the right. Luxemburg opposed early Bolshevik decisions to give land to the peasants (she proposes a kind of collectivization instead). And she absolutely detests the Bolshevik decision to support the right of nations to self-determination. (On this later point she had a history: she was an opponent of Polish independence even as leader of one of Poland’s Social Democratic parties.)
But she also comes down hard on the Bolsheviks for their decision to disperse the elected Constituent Assembly in early 1918, and for their refusal to guarantee freedom of the press and the right to assembly. It’s a mixed bag, and it’s incomplete. There are many “notes to self” throughout.
The second article was written a decade and a half earlier and it is Luxemburg’s answer to Lenin’s proposals regarding the structure of the Russian Social Democratic Party. Lenin was advocating a kind of ‘ultra-centralisation’ which Luxemburg opposed. She was far more convinced that the masses on their own could create the revolution without the help of an all-powerful, all-knowing Central Committee. The last line of the book has become very well known: ‘Historically, the errors committed by a truly revolutionary movement are infinitely more fruitful than the infallibility of the cleverest Central Committee.’
A book as complicated as its author, with arguments to justify many interpretations — but recommended reading nonetheless.
September 12, 2017
A review of Leninism or Marxism (and the introduction):
While Luxemburg was inspirational and demonstrated how different the course of 20th Century Marxism could have been this work is disappointing.
Its mainly a critique of Lenin and how he was implementing Marxist theory in Russia. Now its clear that she was criticising him for the centralisation of his party, the lack of faith he had in the masses and because the historical conditions were not yet ripe in Russia. However, its really not very clear what she was in favour of... shes clearly more libertarian that Lenin but I feel her legacy could be claimed by authoritarians, democrats or anarchists. For the most part she came across as a lot more of a modern social democrat (or democratic socialist) than she is given credit for. A lot of her critique of Lenin seemd to be internal party politics and reminded me a lot of the Green Party's history (i.e. Fundis and realos as an analogy for centralism and decentralism). I wonder what she would have made of Michel's Iron Law of Oligarchy? Also when defending freedom she explicitly referred to General Elections as a sort of pillar of a free society. While she was a major part of the Spartacist revolt she had been in favour of electioneering and so I think its a shame that many Trots have seemed to adopt her.
For the most part I find it hard to recommend this work bc it's much harder to propose alternatives to Lenin than critique. In particular how you can a) make a truly democratic party or b) how you build a radical movement without a party and I don't think Luxemburg even tries to imagine a detailed alternative- instead relying on the "Spontaneity of the masses" (which is not incompatible with proposed structures). For all my criticism this is a work of great historical influence- demonstrating that Leninism was not inevitable or universally accepted.
While Luxemburg was inspirational and demonstrated how different the course of 20th Century Marxism could have been this work is disappointing.
Its mainly a critique of Lenin and how he was implementing Marxist theory in Russia. Now its clear that she was criticising him for the centralisation of his party, the lack of faith he had in the masses and because the historical conditions were not yet ripe in Russia. However, its really not very clear what she was in favour of... shes clearly more libertarian that Lenin but I feel her legacy could be claimed by authoritarians, democrats or anarchists. For the most part she came across as a lot more of a modern social democrat (or democratic socialist) than she is given credit for. A lot of her critique of Lenin seemd to be internal party politics and reminded me a lot of the Green Party's history (i.e. Fundis and realos as an analogy for centralism and decentralism). I wonder what she would have made of Michel's Iron Law of Oligarchy? Also when defending freedom she explicitly referred to General Elections as a sort of pillar of a free society. While she was a major part of the Spartacist revolt she had been in favour of electioneering and so I think its a shame that many Trots have seemed to adopt her.
For the most part I find it hard to recommend this work bc it's much harder to propose alternatives to Lenin than critique. In particular how you can a) make a truly democratic party or b) how you build a radical movement without a party and I don't think Luxemburg even tries to imagine a detailed alternative- instead relying on the "Spontaneity of the masses" (which is not incompatible with proposed structures). For all my criticism this is a work of great historical influence- demonstrating that Leninism was not inevitable or universally accepted.
July 8, 2025
Great work by Rosa, moronic introduction by Wolfe.
Unfortunately, the first work draws from a manuscript which was largely incomplete and thus not expounded upon, but Rosa’s critiques of the Bolsheviks are still valuable and astute provided her sources and condition at the time. Leninism or Marxism? is also a unique work which critiques centralism as principle in Lenin’s philosophy and encourages spontaneous and independent action on the part of the proletariat without falling into false, bourgeois autonomist or opportunist tendencies. She brilliantly does this by remaining committed to Marx’s historical materialism and provides a dialectical sense of the unfolding of the class struggle.
What’s unique and fascinating, is she maintains her Marxist position and draws on some of Marx’s own critiques and answers to Bakunin to critique some centralist and authoritarian policies of the Bolsheviks, and in Leninism or Marxism? maintains a stance against autonomism and individualistic anarchism. Considering the latter essay was done in 1904, well before the Bolsheviks actually assumed power, nay even before the 1905 revolution, it would be more interesting if we knew her thoughts on centralism as principle in the context of defending the proletarian revolution against hostile bourgeois forces (in the Russian Civil War) rather than merely critiquing centralism as a principle for struggling against opportunism. The former essay provides some insights though.
Unfortunately, the first work draws from a manuscript which was largely incomplete and thus not expounded upon, but Rosa’s critiques of the Bolsheviks are still valuable and astute provided her sources and condition at the time. Leninism or Marxism? is also a unique work which critiques centralism as principle in Lenin’s philosophy and encourages spontaneous and independent action on the part of the proletariat without falling into false, bourgeois autonomist or opportunist tendencies. She brilliantly does this by remaining committed to Marx’s historical materialism and provides a dialectical sense of the unfolding of the class struggle.
What’s unique and fascinating, is she maintains her Marxist position and draws on some of Marx’s own critiques and answers to Bakunin to critique some centralist and authoritarian policies of the Bolsheviks, and in Leninism or Marxism? maintains a stance against autonomism and individualistic anarchism. Considering the latter essay was done in 1904, well before the Bolsheviks actually assumed power, nay even before the 1905 revolution, it would be more interesting if we knew her thoughts on centralism as principle in the context of defending the proletarian revolution against hostile bourgeois forces (in the Russian Civil War) rather than merely critiquing centralism as a principle for struggling against opportunism. The former essay provides some insights though.
July 18, 2019
In "Leninism or Marxism," Luxembourg criticizes Lenin's "military ultra-centralism," Lenin's proposed revolutionary strategy of having a vanguard or central committee of professional revolutionaries lead the way and make all of the decisions on behalf of the supposed "will of the people" after a socialist revolution. According to Lenin, this is a necessary step that must be taken to ensure that the revolution moves forward and does not collapse on itself. Luxemburg believes that, even if there is a rough and messy transition (riddled with mistakes), that it is absolutely essential that power not be limited to a small coterie of professional revolutionaries, but that it ultimately and truly reside in the hands of the people. It is the people who must lead the revolution and "make their own mistakes." Luxemburg is adamant about the fact that revolution must be accompanied by democracy rather than elitist centralism, warning (with staggering prescience) that such centralism will inevitably devolve into tyranny. She notes also that opportunists and power-hungry intellectuals could exploit the highly centralized state structure and use it as a mechanism of personal advancement at the expense of the people (as they ended up doing). Luxemburg criticizes Lenin's desire to "control" the revolution. She sees this as an egotistical imposition of the ego on the mass. What's needed, rather, is the raw and spontaneous energy of the people to energize and guide a revolution. Luxemburg is admirable here. In the face of the people she feels a deep humility and admiration for its vital energy. She wishes to see the people lead themselves through a democratic transformation. Lenin, on the other hand, sees only a body of people that need to be controlled and managed. "Stop the natural pulsation of a living organism,” she writes, “and you weaken it, and you diminish its resistance and combative spirit--in this instance, not only against opportunism but also … against the existing social order." Both Lenin and Luxemburg were radicals and revolutionaries. They simply disagreed on what the right method was to bring about the social transformation they wanted. Given that Lenin's centralism did in fact devolve into one of the most authoritarian and tyrannical regimes in history, Luxemburg's plea for democratic participation during in a socialist revolution seems impressively far-sighted.
In "The Russian Revolution," Luxembourg cites the Russian Revolution as one of the most important events in human history. While she admires Lenin's capacity to bring about such a major change, Luxembourg criticizes several of his tactics. She disapproves of Lenin's confiscating and nationalizing all land, rather than tailoring his approach to particular groups and individuals. Why should peasants have their land confiscated, for instance? She disapproves of the way Lenin failed to seize the opportunity to incorporate nearby countries (Ukraine and Finland, as I recall) into the revolutionary effort. She disapproves of the centralism which makes democratic participation (however imperfect) impossible. She argues that the people need to make their own mistakes and gain their own political experience. This cannot be done "for" them. The "living fluid of the popular mood," she writes, should "continuously flows around the representative bodies, penetrates them, guides them." To repress this vital mood in favor of a rigid scheme of party organization is to kill the revolution.
"All this shows," she writes, "that “the cumbersome mechanism of democratic institutions” possesses a powerful corrective – namely, the living movement of the masses, their unending pressure. And the more democratic the institutions, the livelier and stronger the pulse-beat of the political life of the masses, the more direct and complete is their influence – despite rigid party banners, outgrown tickets (electoral lists), etc. To be sure, every democratic institution has its limits and shortcomings, things which it doubtless shares with all other human institutions. But the remedy which Trotsky and Lenin have found, the elimination of democracy as such, is worse than the disease it is supposed to cure; for it stops up the very living source from which alone can come correction of all the innate shortcomings of social institutions. That source is the active, untrammeled, energetic political life of the broadest masses of the people."
Luxemburg criticizes the vanguard's commitment to stifling any voice that goes against the central committee line. What's needed is freedom of press and association, Luxemburg says--essential democratic freedoms that were repressed after the revolution.
She writes, famously, "Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently."
"Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element. Public life gradually falls asleep, a few dozen party leaders of inexhaustible energy and boundless experience direct and rule. Among them, in reality only a dozen outstanding heads do the leading and an elite of the working class is invited from time to time to meetings where they are to applaud the speeches of the leaders, and to approve proposed resolutions unanimously – at bottom, then, a clique affair – a dictatorship, to be sure, not the dictatorship of the proletariat but only the dictatorship of a handful of politicians, that is a dictatorship in the bourgeois sense, in the sense of the rule of the Jacobins … Yes, we can go even further: such conditions must inevitably cause a brutalization of public life: attempted assassinations, shooting of hostages, etc. "
In "The Russian Revolution," Luxembourg cites the Russian Revolution as one of the most important events in human history. While she admires Lenin's capacity to bring about such a major change, Luxembourg criticizes several of his tactics. She disapproves of Lenin's confiscating and nationalizing all land, rather than tailoring his approach to particular groups and individuals. Why should peasants have their land confiscated, for instance? She disapproves of the way Lenin failed to seize the opportunity to incorporate nearby countries (Ukraine and Finland, as I recall) into the revolutionary effort. She disapproves of the centralism which makes democratic participation (however imperfect) impossible. She argues that the people need to make their own mistakes and gain their own political experience. This cannot be done "for" them. The "living fluid of the popular mood," she writes, should "continuously flows around the representative bodies, penetrates them, guides them." To repress this vital mood in favor of a rigid scheme of party organization is to kill the revolution.
"All this shows," she writes, "that “the cumbersome mechanism of democratic institutions” possesses a powerful corrective – namely, the living movement of the masses, their unending pressure. And the more democratic the institutions, the livelier and stronger the pulse-beat of the political life of the masses, the more direct and complete is their influence – despite rigid party banners, outgrown tickets (electoral lists), etc. To be sure, every democratic institution has its limits and shortcomings, things which it doubtless shares with all other human institutions. But the remedy which Trotsky and Lenin have found, the elimination of democracy as such, is worse than the disease it is supposed to cure; for it stops up the very living source from which alone can come correction of all the innate shortcomings of social institutions. That source is the active, untrammeled, energetic political life of the broadest masses of the people."
Luxemburg criticizes the vanguard's commitment to stifling any voice that goes against the central committee line. What's needed is freedom of press and association, Luxemburg says--essential democratic freedoms that were repressed after the revolution.
She writes, famously, "Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently."
"Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element. Public life gradually falls asleep, a few dozen party leaders of inexhaustible energy and boundless experience direct and rule. Among them, in reality only a dozen outstanding heads do the leading and an elite of the working class is invited from time to time to meetings where they are to applaud the speeches of the leaders, and to approve proposed resolutions unanimously – at bottom, then, a clique affair – a dictatorship, to be sure, not the dictatorship of the proletariat but only the dictatorship of a handful of politicians, that is a dictatorship in the bourgeois sense, in the sense of the rule of the Jacobins … Yes, we can go even further: such conditions must inevitably cause a brutalization of public life: attempted assassinations, shooting of hostages, etc. "
May 20, 2020
i had never read anything by luxemburg before, so i expected some mindless apologetic, some erasure of the mistakes from the bolsheviks and just tons of compliments to lenin and his clique. but instead i got a comprehensible attempt of explaining and anaylising when and how the revolution went wrong from someone's perspective. i learned a lot both factually (i hadnt heard of terms like lumpenproletariat, the scheidemanns, had never understood what kautsky meant) and about rosa's point of view, her understanding of such an important historical event.
i think it deserves a 3.5 because as much as i enjoyed the knowledge it gave me, i feel like it could've been better in terms of further explaining certain chapters and certain paragraphs. but im glad i got around to reading it, hopefully ill read more from her or about the revolution this year!
i think it deserves a 3.5 because as much as i enjoyed the knowledge it gave me, i feel like it could've been better in terms of further explaining certain chapters and certain paragraphs. but im glad i got around to reading it, hopefully ill read more from her or about the revolution this year!
November 25, 2025
No Rating - Both political tracts, although somewhat incorrect in small contextual areas due to lack of concurrent information at the time, were and still are extremely useful pieces of leftist history and political analysis. In particular, both pieces provide a solid unintended prediction into some of the most pertinent causes for the fall of the Soviet Union a few decades later. Namely , the cloistering of power into an authoritative system divorced from political currents and, eventually, reality as exists outside of itself. Cannot recommend enough to political theorist readers and history-minded readers alike.
January 7, 2025
Such an important text. Luxemburg tears Marxist-Leninism to shreds here while still praising the Russian Revolution for what it was. She accurately predicts the pitfalls of mass agrarian ‘reform’ and opportunism, as well as the dangers of over-centralisation. She also rightly opposes Lenin’s nationalist rhetoric and predicts the long-term consequences of engendering such sentiment among the many peoples of the fledgling USSR, with the eventual collapse of European communism proving her right in the end.
Luxemburg was a fantastic writer.
Luxemburg was a fantastic writer.
October 15, 2022
Really great book. Some trotskyists and stalinists tried to portray this book as minor criticism towards Leninism. However, if they managed to read this book properly, it's clear that Rosa was against the Bureaucratic collectivism of Stalinist/red fascism (Marxism-Leninism) and Rosa also preferred democratic socialism over democratic centralism.
April 11, 2026
Almost entirely read this on a plane ride.
Quite interesting critiques of the Leninist model of parties. I think her insistence on the creative aspects of the proletariat and the capacity for “self organization” is really important to consider when considering politics. Especially politics of alienated and isolated societies.
Important read.
Quite interesting critiques of the Leninist model of parties. I think her insistence on the creative aspects of the proletariat and the capacity for “self organization” is really important to consider when considering politics. Especially politics of alienated and isolated societies.
Important read.
January 9, 2019
Rosa Luxemburg is an important character in the branches of Marxism that cannot unread. Her rhetoric, prose and prescience was clearly demonstrated in this book. For those who familiar in the theories of revolution would find this particular slim volume of text rather mundane, but it is certainly a book worth revisiting as a reminder of once possible alternatives of revolutionary socialism and its history.
Want to Read
April 11, 2023DK265 L882 1981 Memorial Library
April 28, 2023
luxemburg <333333
June 17, 2023
Glad to finally read some Luxemburg and really appreciate her contributions! As mentioned in other reviews, the titles and intro are ....ehhhh... but i am glad i have this in my collection.
December 14, 2023
do not look in the reviews of this book
January 21, 2024
Slightly unclear writing at times. But a good criticism of Lenin, and exposition of the need for democracy.
February 22, 2024
Interesting and constructive critique of the Russian Revolution.
April 15, 2024
ended that silly little man from ulyanovsk
April 28, 2024
A valuable solidary critique of the early Soviet Union. An important break with Stalinist attempts to appropriate Luxemburg. Still useful reading today for the renewal of Leninist practice.
March 25, 2025
not memorable, nothing new
February 17, 2026
3.75 stars
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews