Rosa did not feel Germany was ready for a revolution
Okay. That does not change the fact that Germany did not provide us a revolution to study. Rosa did not provide us insight on the defeat of imperialism in a country, and the construction of socialism.
Marx and Engels didn't provide us a revolution to study either. Rosa wrote like two pages about the German revolution before she was executed--most of her work was about the conduct of communists in the context of European social democracy, the economics of imperialism, and commentaries on the Russian revolution.
If I was trying to transition a semi-feudal peasant autocracy into a more humane state-capitalist system that would be better able to stand up to imperialism, I could see how reading Lenin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh would help. But I'm trying to make socialism happen in a bourgeois democracy in the developed imperial core, and Rosa's work is a lot more relevant to that struggle than the people you're suggesting.
Marx and Engels didn’t provide us a revolution to study either.
Correct. They provided us the method of dialectical materialism, and the only dialectical materialist analysis of the first workers' revolution, the Paris Commune. They provided us an understanding of Marxism before the age of imperialism
But I’m trying to make socialism happen in the developed imperial core
If you are American, you should be looking at the works of American revolutionaries for our context. Particularly, Harry Haywood's work on the National Question in the US & Huey Newton's work on organizing the lumpenproletariat. But again, these revolutionaries build off the work of Lenin in a way that it is impossible to build off Rosa's work, just given the nature of historical development.
Neither 1917 Russia nor 1918 Germany provide a useful analogy to the specific conditions of the imperial core today. But Lenin's work still provides us a blueprint for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat & challenging capitalism in the age of imperialism.
If you are American, you should be looking at the works of American revolutionaries for our context. Particularly, Harry Haywood’s work on the National Question in the US & Huey Newton’s work on organizing the lumpenproletariat.
I "do politics" in a couple of countries, America and one in Europe, and I do agree that Luxemburg's works are slightly better suited for the European context, but there's certainly still much to learn from her. Like I said, I like Lenin; I like Harry Haywood and Huey Newton even more (they do build on him in interesting ways!). I guess what really turned me off your original post was the list of names you gave, which included people who I feel "built off" Lenin in a very negative and unconstructive way.
it is impossible to build off Rosa’s work, just given the nature of historical development.
I think this is a hidebound and not particularly useful way of looking at theory. Leftists ought not be pinned down by one interpretation of "historical development"--we need to take insights wherever we can get them, and Rosa was a very intelligent woman writing about timeless issues of the left. I'll take some Lenin and some Luxemburg (to be honest, more Luxemburg), and celebrate Three L's Day every year (even though I don't really respect Liebknecht :winking face:).
Leftists ought not be pinned down by one interpretation of “historical development”–we need to take insights wherever we can get them
I agree with this. I'm not telling people "don't read or celebrate Luxembourg." But I am critical of people who try to frame Luxembourg as the "correct" and Lenin as "incorrect." They were both dedicated revolutionaries who had successes & mistakes, and provided us useful insights to learn from.
Lenin provided us the most robust theory on the age of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, and a material example of the dictatorship of the proletariat in practice. That is an unprecedented development on Marxism.
Revolutionaries who recognize this fact tend to be more successful. That is why we have so many Marxist-Leninst experiments, and no "Luxembourgist" ones. That's all I'm saying.
I agree with a the first bit, not entirely with the last bit, but I appreciate your point and the way you've presented it. Some of the other MLs on this site are not nearly as productive in their discourse. Thank you for the conversation!
defeats are arguably more instructive than victories. many factors can lead to either but defeats are final and in the ultimate accounting, we have no true victories yet, only situations that have yet to yield defeat. after all, communism exists no where and fascists victories in the coming decades threaten even what socialism does exist. our first question must be what yields defeat, not what we hope might lead to victory. we only have the data to answer that first question, and even that far from conclusively.
Okay. That does not change the fact that Germany did not provide us a revolution to study. Rosa did not provide us insight on the defeat of imperialism in a country, and the construction of socialism.
Marx and Engels didn't provide us a revolution to study either. Rosa wrote like two pages about the German revolution before she was executed--most of her work was about the conduct of communists in the context of European social democracy, the economics of imperialism, and commentaries on the Russian revolution.
If I was trying to transition a semi-feudal peasant autocracy into a more humane state-capitalist system that would be better able to stand up to imperialism, I could see how reading Lenin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh would help. But I'm trying to make socialism happen in a bourgeois democracy in the developed imperial core, and Rosa's work is a lot more relevant to that struggle than the people you're suggesting.
Correct. They provided us the method of dialectical materialism, and the only dialectical materialist analysis of the first workers' revolution, the Paris Commune. They provided us an understanding of Marxism before the age of imperialism
If you are American, you should be looking at the works of American revolutionaries for our context. Particularly, Harry Haywood's work on the National Question in the US & Huey Newton's work on organizing the lumpenproletariat. But again, these revolutionaries build off the work of Lenin in a way that it is impossible to build off Rosa's work, just given the nature of historical development.
Neither 1917 Russia nor 1918 Germany provide a useful analogy to the specific conditions of the imperial core today. But Lenin's work still provides us a blueprint for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat & challenging capitalism in the age of imperialism.
I "do politics" in a couple of countries, America and one in Europe, and I do agree that Luxemburg's works are slightly better suited for the European context, but there's certainly still much to learn from her. Like I said, I like Lenin; I like Harry Haywood and Huey Newton even more (they do build on him in interesting ways!). I guess what really turned me off your original post was the list of names you gave, which included people who I feel "built off" Lenin in a very negative and unconstructive way.
I think this is a hidebound and not particularly useful way of looking at theory. Leftists ought not be pinned down by one interpretation of "historical development"--we need to take insights wherever we can get them, and Rosa was a very intelligent woman writing about timeless issues of the left. I'll take some Lenin and some Luxemburg (to be honest, more Luxemburg), and celebrate Three L's Day every year (even though I don't really respect Liebknecht :winking face:).
I agree with this. I'm not telling people "don't read or celebrate Luxembourg." But I am critical of people who try to frame Luxembourg as the "correct" and Lenin as "incorrect." They were both dedicated revolutionaries who had successes & mistakes, and provided us useful insights to learn from.
Lenin provided us the most robust theory on the age of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, and a material example of the dictatorship of the proletariat in practice. That is an unprecedented development on Marxism.
Revolutionaries who recognize this fact tend to be more successful. That is why we have so many Marxist-Leninst experiments, and no "Luxembourgist" ones. That's all I'm saying.
I agree with a the first bit, not entirely with the last bit, but I appreciate your point and the way you've presented it. Some of the other MLs on this site are not nearly as productive in their discourse. Thank you for the conversation!
defeats are arguably more instructive than victories. many factors can lead to either but defeats are final and in the ultimate accounting, we have no true victories yet, only situations that have yet to yield defeat. after all, communism exists no where and fascists victories in the coming decades threaten even what socialism does exist. our first question must be what yields defeat, not what we hope might lead to victory. we only have the data to answer that first question, and even that far from conclusively.