Luxemburg – Reform or Revolution?

[alanjjohnstone]

One thing we have to be clear upon and what Luxemburg explicitly explains – the SPD will only be the party of opposition , regardless of the reformist position and won't enter parliament/council in coalition to take office or minority party to run capitalism' and end up in the same predicament as the Greens in Brighton.  http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/15/greens-blown-it-in-brighton Another opposition to reformism is that we do not want supporters of actual reforms to vote for us for those reforms rather than support for the goal . 

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Certainly her pamphlet defends the day-to-day practice of the SPD of the time, i.e having a minimum programme of reforms as well as a maximum programme of the capture of political power for socialism. But is having or defending having a minimum programme automatically of itself reformist? I thought our position was more subtle, i.e that having a minimum programme runs the high risk of a party becoming reformist as its support will be built up on this basis rather than for socialism and eventually someone (like Bernstein) will come along and call for theory to be brought into line with practice. And the party become a reformist party.

 I don't see how having a  minimum programme could not be construed as reformist.  What you really seem to be saying is that having  a minimum programme does  not necessarily mean that on balance the party should be considered a reformist party if it continues to advocate revolution. That may be true but it does not detract from the fact that having a minimum programme is indeed "automatically of itself reformist".  Of course what will happen – inevitably – is that the reformist element of the party will crowd out the revolutionary element so you will end up with a completely reformist  party rather than a hybrid that it might at first be 

ALB wrote:

What I'm suggesting is that we restrict the word "reformist" to those who advocate that socialism can be established gradually by a long series of reform measures. But maybe this is too narrow as reformist (in this sense) parties go on to suffer a further degeneration and drop even the pretence that "socialism" is the long-term goal and end up just advocating reforms to capitalism as an end in itself. In other words, the link between "reformism" and "socialism" is completely broken. In practice we've more or less accepted this evolution of the word "reformism" and apply it to parties such as the Tories, Liberals, Greens and Nationalists which have never even claimed to be socialist.

 Aren't you slightly contradicting yourself here?  If the Tories et al are to be considered "reformist"  then how can you restrict the term reformist to those that advocate  that socialism can be established gradually?.  The Tories don't advocate socialism so what would you call them then in that case?  Non reformists?  Surely not.A  better approach would be simply to acknowledge that there are different varieties of reformism .  In my view the earliest variety was that associated with the Social Democratic movement  which in fact coined the very term "reformism",  Another major and more recent  variety of reformism does not have as its objective the structural transformation of capitalism into something else .  It is this particular variety of reformism, I suggest, that is the default form of reformism in general and to which all other forms of reformism will naturally  tend to collapse in the long term

ALB wrote:

Even when Luxemburg wrote her pamphlet (at the turn of the century) the SPD had become reformist (Bernstein was right).  Its voters and most of its members wanted social reforms and political democracy in Germany not socialism. Her mistake was to not realise this and to assume that it was a mass socialist party. On this assumption some of the things she says about reforms in the quotes Alan has given make more sense. A mass, genuinely socialist party would not neglect the position of workers under capitalism while this lasted. After all, even we can countenance Socialist MPs and local councillors when they are a minority voting for reforms or other pro-worker measures under some circumstances.

 Yes but the key difference here is refraining from the pro-active advocacy of reforms – legislative enactments. Once you get into that ball game you've crossed the Rubicon  and nothing but the slippery slope awaits you which will deliver you  into the quagmire of reformist politics from which there is no escape.  I might be wrong but I think some of the passages from Luxemburg Alan quoted hint at such an approach of not pro-actively advocating reforms but rather,  of "wringing concensions " from the state – that is, forcing the state to offer reforms as a sop in a bid to buy off the revolution

[ALB]

Robbo, I don't disagree with your points. I was just hesitating to accuse Luxemburg of "reformism" or of "defending reformism" on the ground that she defended a socialist party having a minimum programme of reforms. I think it fairer to say that she was a revolutionary socialist who was mistaken on this point. In any event, the early Party considered her a revolutionary socialist. An article in the January 1907 Socialist Standard, reproducing part of and commenting on a speech of her at her trial for sedition, ends:

Quote:

After an hour’s deliberation Rosa was found guilty and sentenced to 2 months imprisonment.Well done, “red Rosa”; you have grandly expressed the sentiments of the class-conscious workers of the world and may you live to see the Social Revolution accomplished!

[pgb]

Robbo wrote:“On the question of Luxemburg's attitude towards reforms I'm not sure youare correct in saying that when she observed that they were "inadequate" shemeant from the point of view of obtaining socialism. What I think she meantby inadequate or insufficient was from the point of view of meeting theneeds of workers under capitalism. It was the realisation that they wereinadequate from that point of view that would cause workers, in her view,to turn to socialism instead" Well, I think you are wrong here. I don't think RL thought reforms as such were inadequate or insufficient just because they didn't meet workers' needs under capitalism. The value to her of these reforms had nothing to do with their alleviation or otherwise of worker’s real life conditions. Their value lay in the fact that the struggle for them was a necessary condition for the development of working class consciousness – the subjective condition for revolution. She never denied that workers could make gains from reforms, it's just that reformists (like Bernstein et al) had corrupted the revolutionary potential of the workers' movement by sacrificing the ultimate goal for immediate gains. She pointed to England as a case where English TU's had achieved successes but only by abandoning a class viewpoint and settling for gains within the framework of a capitalist economy. Here is another quote from RL (as posted by AJJ #14): "We know that socialism cannot be introduced all at once but only if we force small reforms by leading a sharp class struggle on an economic and political basis in order to increase our economic and political strength, to take power, and finally to wring the neck of today's society.” “The struggle for reforms is not and cannot be a means torevolution as Luxemburg claimed and it was Bernstein paradoxically whograsped better than Luxemburg what that struggle was about: – that the goalwould become nothing and the movement , everything”Bernstein’s statement was “ the final goal no matter what it is, is nothing,: the movement is everything”. He was not saying that the final goal (socialism) would become nothing if workers pursued only reforms. Why would he say that when he rejected socialism as being the final goal of the workers’ movement? Unlike Luxemburg (and Lenin) Bernstein believed that capitalism would not collapse in the foreseeable future, so the movement should aim at securing immediate social and political benefits (reforms) within capitalism. In that he was reflecting the view of the overwhelming majority of SPD members and German workers generally who had no desire at all to make a revolution but only wanted to better their conditions within capitalism. This is also true of all other Social Democratic and Labour (TU based) parties in the world. “The struggle for reforms ( or reformism) in thesense of measures undertaken by he the state cannot possibly prepare theworking class to undertake the final battle in the form of the socialistrevolution. On the contrary, it can only make for the perpetualpostponement and eventual abandonment of that revolutionary goal”Why? If workers struggle to, say, defend or extend welfare state provisions – measures undertaken by the state – why should that particular struggle not be a site which could provide for “an increase in (workers’) economic and political strength”(RL) ? The development of a revolutionary consciousness would involve more than just theoretical awareness (the big thing for Luxemburg), but no less things like collective solidarity, confidence and political efficacy, all of which would be positive for the development of a revolutionary will – the subjective condition for revolution. If you reject TU activity as a form of class struggle with the potential to turn workers into socialist revolutionaries, and if you also totally reject political struggles directed at the state for the same reason, then in what social domain do you think working class revolutionary consciousness might develop? And, from this, what do you then see as the role of a revolutionary socialist party today, in advanced capitalist societies?

[colinskelly]

I think you are right ALB, Luxemburg made the assumption that the SPD was a mass party for socialism.  In fact her position, given that assumption, is not too disimilar from that of the SPGB established in (I think) 1911 – that socialist MPs would in fact take a position in parliament on matters relating to reforms, ie. they would not just be there as a protest until a majority came about, they would be active in the class struggle.  Luxemburg's assumption was wrong of course.  The SPD was not a mass party of socialists but a mass party of reformists utilising Marxist phraseology and an increasingly merely formal theoretical commitment to revolution.

[Brian]

It seems you are all failing to see the difference between the 'political system' and the 'political process'.  And consequently getting into a mess over the meaning of reforms,reformism and revolution. Luxemburg et al mistakenly thought that in order to obtain revolution it meant accepting an involvement with the political system and forgot there is no need to get your fingers dirty when you understand that actually its the political process which offers the means for self-emancipation.Why accept class corroboration (crossing the rubicon) has a forgone conclusion when involvement in the political process is sufficient to get the message across in terms of no compromise with the political system.Why rattle on about who said what when the solution is staring you in the face?  A revolutionary party does not become involved with the political system.

[colinskelly]

But that would mean that a socialist MP or group of MPs, whilst still a minority, would just sit in parliament as a sterile protest group. Whilst not adopting a programme of reforms these MPs, as delegates, could use their votes in favour of working class interests. How that might be determined is, admittedly, problematic – what reform is a gain for the working class and what a palliative prolonging the system? But should the socialist movement have got that far it would not really be possible to keep its hands clean.

[Brian]

colinskelly wrote:

But that would mean that a socialist MP or group of MPs, whilst still a minority, would just sit in parliament as a sterile protest group. Whilst not adopting a programme of reforms these MPs, as delegates, could use their votes in favour of working class interests. How that might be determined is, admittedly, problematic – what reform is a gain for the working class and what a palliative prolonging the system? But should the socialist movement have got that far it would not really be possible to keep its hands clean.

You keep your hands clean by not advocating reforms and by making a judgement on the merits of accepting a particular reform within the political process.  In short the delegates would have to be mandated by the electorate on whether or not they accept or abstain from voting on particular reform(s) which affect working class interests.

[ALB]

Brian, I think Colin was seeing what you wrote as supporting those who disagreed that a minority of Socialist MPs could vote for some reform measures (while not proposing any) and who resigned over the matter, as mentioned in this article in the June 2004 Socialist Standard:

Quote:

The early dispute in the Socialist Party which led to the formation of the tiny Socialist Propaganda League was the product of the optimistic belief of the Party’s founder members that the socialist revolution was near. A group of members around Harry Martin and Augustus Snellgrove wanted the Party to take a definitive stand on the attitude socialist delegates elected to parliament or local councils would take towards reform measures proposed by one or more of the capitalist parties. In February 1910 a letter from “W.B. (Upton Park)” was sent to the Socialist Standard asking “What would be the attitude of a member of the SPGB if elected to Parliament, and how would he maintain the principle of ‘No Compromise’?” The perspective of this small group of members was that no reform of capitalism could ever be supported by the party claiming to represent working class interests as it was not the job of socialists to take part in the running of capitalism. Any attempt to do so would run counter to the famous ‘hostility clause’ of the Declaration of Principles.The Standard ’s reply on the matter,backed by the Party’s Executive Committee, stated that each issue would have to be looked at on its merits and the course to be pursued decided democratically. This did not satisfy the members who had raised the question, who formed a ‘Provisional Committee’ aimed at overturning the position espoused in the Standard’s reply and who set their case out in an ‘Open Letter’ to Party members, arguing that socialists were required to oppose measures introduced by capitalist parties on each and every occasion. This was again rebutted firmly by the EC who contended that it would be ridiculous for socialists, by way of example, to oppose a measure designed to stop a war in which the working class was being butchered.Believing this approach to be a violation of the principle of ‘no compromise’ several members resigned over this issue during 1911, a small number going on to found the Socialist Propaganda League. The SPL’s principal speaker and writer was Harry Martin, Snellgrove having been one of those from the Provisional Committee later to rejoin. Though Martin was sympathetic to the Party in all other respects, he continued to denounce the SPGB’s willingness to engage in ‘political trading’ in pamphlets and on the outdoor platform until his death in 1951. One of the SPL’s pamphlets, From Slavery To Freedom, was critically reviewed in the Socialist Standard in November 1932.

It did sound a bit like it.There are clearly degrees of anti-reformism ! Luxemburg at one end, the SPL at the other, with us somewhere in between?

[Brian]

ALB wrote:

Brian, I think Colin was seeing what you wrote as supporting those who disagreed that a minority of Socialist MPs could vote for some reform measures (while not proposing any) and who resigned over the matter, as mentioned in this article in the June 2004 Socialist Standard:

Quote:

The early dispute in the Socialist Party which led to the formation of the tiny Socialist Propaganda League was the product of the optimistic belief of the Party’s founder members that the socialist revolution was near. A group of members around Harry Martin and Augustus Snellgrove wanted the Party to take a definitive stand on the attitude socialist delegates elected to parliament or local councils would take towards reform measures proposed by one or more of the capitalist parties. In February 1910 a letter from “W.B. (Upton Park)” was sent to the Socialist Standard asking “What would be the attitude of a member of the SPGB if elected to Parliament, and how would he maintain the principle of ‘No Compromise’?” The perspective of this small group of members was that no reform of capitalism could ever be supported by the party claiming to represent working class interests as it was not the job of socialists to take part in the running of capitalism. Any attempt to do so would run counter to the famous ‘hostility clause’ of the Declaration of Principles.The Standard ’s reply on the matter,backed by the Party’s Executive Committee, stated that each issue would have to be looked at on its merits and the course to be pursued decided democratically. This did not satisfy the members who had raised the question, who formed a ‘Provisional Committee’ aimed at overturning the position espoused in the Standard’s reply and who set their case out in an ‘Open Letter’ to Party members, arguing that socialists were required to oppose measures introduced by capitalist parties on each and every occasion. This was again rebutted firmly by the EC who contended that it would be ridiculous for socialists, by way of example, to oppose a measure designed to stop a war in which the working class was being butchered.Believing this approach to be a violation of the principle of ‘no compromise’ several members resigned over this issue during 1911, a small number going on to found the Socialist Propaganda League. The SPL’s principal speaker and writer was Harry Martin, Snellgrove having been one of those from the Provisional Committee later to rejoin. Though Martin was sympathetic to the Party in all other respects, he continued to denounce the SPGB’s willingness to engage in ‘political trading’ in pamphlets and on the outdoor platform until his death in 1951. One of the SPL’s pamphlets, From Slavery To Freedom, was critically reviewed in the Socialist Standard in November 1932.

It did sound a bit like it.There are clearly degrees of anti-reformism ! Luxemburg at one end, the SPL at the other, with us somewhere in between?

I'm firmly with the stance taken by the EC regarding how far the issue of no compromise can be taken.  For it seems they also made the distinction between the political system and the political process.  To clarify:If we were to accept the political system it would mean agreeing for all it stands for.  Which not only includes advocating and proposing reforms but also the day-to-day running of capitalism and thus, effectively compromising our position for a revolutionary transformation. On the other hand by placing ourselves firmly alongside the political process we are stating that despite the limitations of representative democracy our participation in electoral campaigns and the political process in general – which includes voting on reforms – is not to be mistaken for participation in the political system where 'political trading' takes place between the conflicting and competive interests of the capitalist class.In practice this means that socialist delegates will have no hand in advocating, proposing or amending any reforms when clearly such participation is designed to distract the class struggle from the revolutionary process.  Therefore each and every socialist delegate will be mandated by their electorate that they shall only participate in the running of parliamentary procedures as and when necessary and when its clearly in the interests of the working class to do so.  All reforms will be judged and voted on their merits of whether or not they will benefit the working class.In effect the socialist delegates will be noted for their absence in the chamber rather than their attendance for much of the business of parliament is concerned with the day-to-day running of capitalism.

[ALB]

Actually, the early Party members would have shared Rosa Luxemburg's view that there was a growing or soon to grow socialist movement of which they were part of the anti-reformist wing and so felt they had to take a position on what a minority of Socialist MPs and councillors should and should not do as this was seen as an immediate or at least imminent issue.Looking at it today the (eminently sensible) conclusion that was reached (that they could vote for some measures) has only symbolic significance today since we are not anywhere near there being a minority of Socialist MPs. What it shows is that we are not opposed to all reforms on principle.It's the same with the decision, taken at the same time but which was also contested by some members, that a Socialist elected to parliament should take the Oath of Allegiance so they could take their seat.

[alanjjohnstone]

Just to widen it a little, i think RL reflects a social democratic view as also espoused by Debs in America”There is but one issue that appeals to this conquering army-the unconditional surrender of the capitalistic class. To be sure this can not be achieved in a day and in the meantime the party enforces to the extent of its power its immediate demands and presses steadily onward toward the goal. It has its constructive program by means of which it develops its power and its capacity, step by step, seizing upon every bit of vantage to advance and strengthen its position, but never for a moment mistaking reform for revolution and never losing sight of the ultimate goal. Socialist reform must not be confounded with so-cared capitalist reform. The latter is shrewdly designed to buttress capitalism; the former to overthrow it. Socialist reform vitalizes and promotes the socialist revolution.” http://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1912/twoparties.htm Both perceived the real possibility of substantial parliamentary foothold. (indeed the SPD had such numbers) but that for the time being not possessing political supremacy to achieve its goal. The SPC Canadian provincial assembly member expresses the policy – he or she will vote when it advances the workers interests. We of course can expect advocacy of certain reforms such as when a trade union puts forth a request for health and safety legislation to be introduced and moved in parliament. Would we reject such a plea? Would we stay quiet at every military and international diplomatic Commons debate.  Surely in the current immigrations debate if May introduced her intentions of retrictions we would be vociferous in opposition. Would we also not put forward our own counter proposal of open door borders? So many occupational and professional socialist organisations affiliated to the Socialist Party  will see opportunities to start the process of re-structuring and won’t we take upon their advice and begin proposing changes that can be achieved?  These aren’t particularly questions facing us now but we should recognise that they will be issues that the party faces in the future if we acquire political strength. We can simply generalise at the moment, the particular answers can wait for the decisions of  the party members whuch will have the responsibiliy of taking a position on individual reforms.  There is no need for an immediate demands platform (a list of demands would be never ending and current leftists end up excluding many worthy aspirations) but when the time comes we will require a practical platform. But no-one here right now has the perogative of deciding what it should be. 

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Surely in the current immigrations debate if May introduced her intentions of retrictions we would be vociferous in opposition. Would we also not put forward our own counter proposal of open door borders?

I'm sure we would denounce immigration controls, but not so sure not that we would counter-propose an "open door borders" policy under capitalism. (More likely that we would say that we want the world without borders that socialism would be). No state is going to adopt such a policy so this would fall into the category of "unrealisable" reforms. But would we actually advocate or propose it? Is it in fact our policy?Officially, it is our policy that a minority of Socialist MPs should not propose anything, only vote for, against, abstain or not take part in the vote, on proposals put forward by other MPs, i.e. that they should not themselves propose any reform measures (as that would be the thin end of the slippery slope to reformism).Of course, as you say, that's us today. What would actually happen in the future would be up to the socialist movement at the time. Maybe the future mass socialist movement will adopt instead what Luxemburg or Debs advocated. Hopefully no (especially not Debs's oxymoronic concept of so-called "socialist reforms"), but it's not up to us today.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Just to widen it a little, i think RL reflects a social democratic view as also espoused by Debs in America

OK, let's widen it, to those in the "impossibilist" tradition in North America: the SLP and the SPC both of which, like us, were committed to standing in elections on a socialist ticket and so faced with the same question as us as to what a Socialist "MP" (or whatever) should do.In 1910 Victor Berger of the "Socialist Party of America" (Debs's party) was elected a member of the US House of Representatives for a district in Wisconsin. He was an open and out-and-out reformist. In 1911 De Leon, of the rival Socialist Labor Party (which was an "impossiblist" party) wrote a series of articles in the Daily People commenting on Berger's activities in Congress. These were later published as a pamphlet, the latest edition of which is called A Socialist in Congress: His Conduct and Responsibilities. The SLP to the 1963 edition says:

Quote:

This pamphlet answers the question: How would a Socialist act if he were elected to Congress or to other high office? The Marxian answer is given by Daniel De Leon, this country's master Socialist, in an analysis of how a false Socialist acted. A basic part of the answer is that a real Socialist would not use his office to advocate reforms of capitalism. He would use it as a rostrum from which to attract the attention of the workers of the land, and from which he would show that capitalism cannot be reformed so that it will operate on behalf of the workers. He would demonstrate the imperative necessity for the elimination of capitalism, and the need for a Socialist reconstruction of society.

Good stuff. Basically De Leon criticised Berger for not using his position to propagate Socialist ideas. He only praises him once, for proposing a constitutional amendment that would make it easier to change the Constitution.Also in 1910 Charlie O'Brien, of the Socialist Party of Canada, was elected to the Alberta Legislature. His first speech was published as a pamphlet The Proletarian in Politics. The SPC added a note at the end:

Quote:

NOTE.– The amendment to open the agreement between the government and the A. & G. W. Ry Co. was the only question upon which O’Brien voted in the House in connection with this affair. Just previous to the next division he said: “I am asked to record a vote of lack of confidence in the government. Why, of course, I have no confidence in this or any other government. I know that governments are for the purpose of pacifying slaves, and holding them in subjection while the masters take the largest possible amount of the surplus values. How could I have confidence in a government that would (just previous to dissolution) pass an eight-hour law for coal miners, and then in less than six months after re-election nullify a very important part of that law on a cheap pretext of a possible scarcity of coal? But then, if I do as I am asked, record a vote of lack of confidence in that government, I, by the same action, vote confidence in this opposition. And who are they? They are just as bad as the government, perhaps worse.” O’Brien concluded by saying: “I have no confidence in either of you, and it does not matter to me which of you win. It is a fight between political representatives of different corporations over surplus values that have been and are to be stolen from my class. When I voted on the last division I did so because I saw an opportunity to benefit a few of my class, the laborers in the construction camp. There is no opportunity to get anything for the workers on this vote, and I shall not vote. On every vote where there is no opportunity to get something for my class, I shall not vote. On every vote where there is no opportunity to get anything for my class, I shall leave the House and refrain from voting. The Attorney General has said that this is a family quarrel. Correct. Between you be it!” And O’Brien left the House.

That's the stuff.Ken MacLeod in his SF novel The Stone Canal imagines a situation in which there are a couple of "World Socialist" MPs and who are faced with a vote of confidence in the existing government:

Quote:

The next day the government lost a no-confidence motion (due to the abstention of only five MPs, the three Workers Power and two World Socialists) and fell, to be replaced by a more radical coalition drawing in support from the smaller parties.

Abstaining can have consequences, but Charlie O'Brien was right that to take part in such a vote is to support one or other capitalist party or coalition.

[pgb]

Robbo:I agree that the "insufficiency" Luxemburg refers to in her remarks on Konrad Schmidt is the insufficiency of capitalist reforms to bring about socialism "through an unbroken chain of augmented reforms". But that's an insufficiency from her point of view only – which was that reforms are meaningless if they were not a means to revolution. That doesn't mean that workers and SPDers held the same view about reforms as she did. So when you say that the inadequacy of reforms for RL can only mean that they must fail to meet the actual needs of workers, you are referring not to the actual needs of workers but to their needs as defined in Marxist class theory, based on a belief – firmly and unalterably held by Luxemburg – that the working class was revolutionary "by nature", it was "essentially" revolutionary. This surely blinded Luxemburg to the fact that the real (actually expressed) interests of workers in Germany and the SPD, evident all around her at the time, were on the side of reforms and reformism, of piecemeal social change. It was Bernstein and his revisionism that gave expression to these real interests of German workers.I agree also with your interpretation of Bernstein's position. But I didn't say that he merely "rejected socialism". I said that "he rejected socialism as being the final goal of the workers' movement", which is true for the reasons given in your quote from Luxemburg in that socialism as a goal of the workers' movement is unnecessary because for Bernstein, TU and parliamentary activity, as RL said, "removes from capitalist society its capitalist character". Hence no point in having socialist revolution as a final goal and political strategy for the workers' movement.Where I do disagree is with your views about the state and political action, as distinct from strictly economic (TU) action. Your picture of political action is so far away from my experience of politics in a modern (liberal democratic) capitalist state that I wonder am I on another planet. Why do you insist that pushing for reforms means "cap in hand supplication to the capitalist state"? That isn't even fair to those 19th century Chartists who pushed for democratic reforms (with the active support of one K Marx)! Why do you call legislation that enforces workers rights to eg. free medical and health care or occupational safety "a mere scrap of white paper etc"? Are you seriously suggesting that the legal entrenchment of a right is of no consequence for workers? In my part of the world these reforms were introduced via political parties and pressure groups and did not represent merely a "ratification of what happened on the ground". Your post hoc propter hoc fallacy doesn‘t fit. Making the propagation of ideas a principal role for a revolutionary socialist party today is fine. But it is a long way from what Luxemburg and other Marxists believed in and practised. For them, the propagation of socialist ideas was meaningful only in the context of an active working class movement. The lesson here for me is that socialists must actively engage in the political and economic struggles of the working class if their propagation of ideas is to be more than what you call “abstract propagandism”. Does the SPGB do that? But what if there is no working class movement to speak of? What if after a century and a half there is not the slightest evidence that the working class is “essentially” or even potentially a revolutionary class? Anyway, thank you for the opportunity to give my views on Rosa Luxemburg. It forced me to read again her pamphlet which I first looked at more than fifty years ago.

[Author]

Posts