Scan barcode
A review by niconorico
Leninism or Marxism? Organizational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy by Rosa Luxemburg
5.0
Luxemburg's "Organizational Questions" addresses the debate over the degree of centralization and autonomy which the workers' organizations should employ. These questions are still hotly debated today. It is short and worth the read. Read further only to understand the historical context of the debate.
The material conditions which Luxemburg and Lenin lived, and which contributed to their views, were in stark contrast. Industrialized Germany possessed a much larger working class, as well as a larger and more national owner class. Russia, which had scarcely begun to industrialize, possessed a small working class as well as owner class, but in industrializing countries the owner class includes a bulk of foreign investors. When the revolution in Russia succeeded, we could say definitively that Luxemburg underestimated the foreign character of capital ownership. Democratic Centralism was the first successful organizational structure of the working class.
Workers' States have, so far, only been established in the third world—in former colonies. The owner class is much weaker in these places. There are significantly fewer workers organizations as well. These are the conditions which Centralism has been most effective. In the first world Centralist orgs have played an important role, but they have so far failed. Maoists argue this is a historic necessity. Luxemburg, however, would argue that the historic conditions in industrialized countries compel the working class into a plurality of working class organizations, and that this plurality must be organized under one Social Democratic Party (Decentralized).
This is usually just a theoretical debate. We're all in the same struggle, and healthy orgs work together. Luxemburg's is just one view of many, but it's a valuable view to understand.
The material conditions which Luxemburg and Lenin lived, and which contributed to their views, were in stark contrast. Industrialized Germany possessed a much larger working class, as well as a larger and more national owner class. Russia, which had scarcely begun to industrialize, possessed a small working class as well as owner class, but in industrializing countries the owner class includes a bulk of foreign investors. When the revolution in Russia succeeded, we could say definitively that Luxemburg underestimated the foreign character of capital ownership. Democratic Centralism was the first successful organizational structure of the working class.
Workers' States have, so far, only been established in the third world—in former colonies. The owner class is much weaker in these places. There are significantly fewer workers organizations as well. These are the conditions which Centralism has been most effective. In the first world Centralist orgs have played an important role, but they have so far failed. Maoists argue this is a historic necessity. Luxemburg, however, would argue that the historic conditions in industrialized countries compel the working class into a plurality of working class organizations, and that this plurality must be organized under one Social Democratic Party (Decentralized).
This is usually just a theoretical debate. We're all in the same struggle, and healthy orgs work together. Luxemburg's is just one view of many, but it's a valuable view to understand.