Rosa Luxemburg’s Criticism of Lenin
Rosa Luxemburg’s Criticism
of Lenin’s Ultra Centralistic Party Concept and of the
Bolshevik Revolution
Completed version of a paper originally presented
to the Rosa
Luxemburg Conference at
by Ottokar Luban
In 1922 a heated controversy on Rosa Luxemburg’s manuscript “The Russian
Revolution” arose in the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) and in the Communist
International (KI). Paul Levi who was a close friend of Rosa
and since March 1919 the leader of the KPD criticised publicly the
participation of the Central Committee in the March 1921 uprising in Middle
Germany and called it a putsch especially since some Russian advisors from the
KI had urged the action. Already expelled from the KPD he published at the end
of 1921 the then unknown manuscript “The Russian Revolution” by Rosa Luxemburg
using it as a propaganda weapon against his opponents. On the one hand Levi
emphasized Luxemburg’s critical remarks on the Bolshevik policy in 1918. On the
other hand Luxemburg’ s old friends Clara Zetkin and Adolf Warski assured that
Rosa had given up her critical position against Lenin and the Bolsheviks in the
last weeks of her life between the German November Revolution 1918 and her
death on January 15, 1919.[1] Since 1922 this
discussion was continued many times in all variations with the culmination in
1931 when Stalin condemned Luxemburg and her followers as half-Mensheviks.
After World War II this negative attitude was smoothed slowly in the European
communist countries (mainly in East Germany) especially since the 1960s and
more since the 1970s while in the western European countries Rosa Luxemburg was
sometimes discriminated as a Bolshevik communist and sometimes used as
propaganda weapon against the practised state communism.[2]
Now since the cold war is over and most relevant archives of the former
communist states are open for all scholars we have the chance to collect, check
and evaluate the facts on Rosa Luxemburg’s opinion concerning Lenin’s party concept
on a basis of rich materials.
“Organizational Questions of
Russian Social Democracy” (1904) and
“ Credo: On the State of Russian
Already in her 1904 essay “Organizational Questions of Russian Social
Democracy” Luxemburg makes clear the fundamental difference between her basic
democratic position and Lenin’s ultra centralistic party concept. She sharply
criticises Lenin’s notion “the Central Committee emerges as the real active nucleus
of the party; all the remaining organizations are merely its executive instruments.”[3]
In contrast to this Luxemburg emphasizes the role of the proletarian masses: “The
social democratic movement is the first movement in the history of class
societies to be premised in its every aspect and in its whole development on
the organization and the independent direct action of the masses.”[4]
For Luxemburg the ultra centralistic concept neglects the creativity of the
proletarian masses, it is “imbued, not with a positive creative spirit, but
with the sterile spirit of the night-watchman state. His line of thought is
concerned principally with the control of party activity and not with its
fertilization, with narrowing and not
with broadening, with tying the movement up and not with drawing it together.”[5] Luxemburg concludes her 1904 essay with
a phrase which was often used in political debates from the 1920s till the
1950s or even later by anti-Stalinist socialists: “…the mistakes that are made
by a truly revolutionary workers’ movement are, historically speaking, immeasurably
more fruitful and more valuable than the infallibility of the best possible
‘Central Committee’.”[6]
In a more moderate way she repeats her critique of Lenin’s party concept
in her long 1911 manuscript with a plea for the unity of the Russian Social Democratic
Party which Rosa Luxemburg’s SDKPiL (Social Democratic Party of the Kingdom of Poland Lithuania
“The Mass Strike, the
Political Party, and the Trade Unions” (1906)
Luxemburg’s concept of the role of a socialist party and the masses was
also in contrast to the bureaucratic attitude of the German Social Democratic
Party and of the German unions as we can recognize from her booklet “The Mass
Strike, the Political Party, and the
Trade Unions” published at the end of 1906. As conclusions from her personal
experience as an activist in the first Russian revolution of 1905/06 she
confirms the importance of mass actions – especially the mass strike - and
defines the essentials for her further political writings and activities: The
party leaders should neither wait passively for a revolutionary development nor
should they merely give orders for the start of a
mass strike but they must take over the political leadership in encouraging the
readiness of the workers with speeches driving things
forward.
As the experience of the first Russian revolution had shown the spontaneity
of the masses played an important role for the rise and decline of a
revolutionary development.[12]
Putting the emphasis on the spontaneous action of the masses and on a forward
driving agitation, not on the organizational party work and on a given order of
the leadership Luxemburg was in contrast to the bureaucratic attitude of the
German Social Democratic Party und the German unions and also – concerning the
role of the masses – in contrast to Lenin’s ultra centralistic attitude.
The Junius Pamphlet – “The
Crisis in German Social Democracy” (1915)
Even more significant for her basic democratic conviction are her statements
in the Junius Pamphlet with its convincing and impressive plea for a socialist
peace policy which she wrote in the spring of 1915: “Revolutions are not ‘made’
and great movements of the people are not produced according to technical
recipes that repose in the pockets of the party leaders. Small circles of
conspirators may organize a riot for a certain day and a certain hour, can give
their small group of supporters the signal to begin. Mass movements in great
historical crises cannot be initiated by such primitive measures… The existing
degree of tension between the classes, the degree of intelligence of the masses
and the degree or ripeness of their spirit of resistance – all these factors,
which are incalculable are premises that cannot be artificially created by any
party…The great historical hour itself creates the forms that will carry the
revolutionary movements to a successful outcome, creates and improvises new
weapons, enriches the arsenal of the people unknown and unheard of by the party
and its leaders.”[13]
Manuscript
“The Russian Revolution” (September/October 1918)
This basic democratic orientation was also the starting point for
Luxemburg’s criticism of the Bolshevik policy in Russia
It is evident that Luxemburg‘s basic democratic arguments go in a
straight line from her criticism in the 1904 essay “Organizational Questions of
Russian Social Democracy”, in the 1906 mass strike pamphlet, in the 1915 Junius
booklet to the 1918 manuscript on the Russian revolution.
There remain three important questions:
- Did the other leaders of the “Spartacus Group” (from November 11, 1918 on named
“Spartacus League”) that is the group around Rosa Luxemburg, the later
Communist Party of Germany, share her criticism on the Bolshevik policy?
- Did Luxemburg change her
critical attitude towards the political practice of the Bolshevik in the months
after having written “The Russian Revolution”?
- Did Rosa Luxemburg after the Russian October Revolution in 1917 show
hostility against the Bolsheviks as sometimes assumed or did she practise critical
solidarity to the Russian comrades?
The Attitude of the other Spartacus Leaders
It is well known that Clara
Zetkin and Franz Mehring publicly defended the Bolsheviks in many essays.[18] Paul Levi opposed
Luxemburg’s critical view in September and October 1918 while in the 1920s he
used Luxemburg’s arguments against the communist in Germany Moscow Berlin Russia
The
Question of Luxemburg’s Possible Change of View
In the already mentioned heated debate in the 1920s Rosa Luxemburg’s old
Polish friend and political colleague Adolf Warski published a letter he had
received from her in December 1918 in which she explains the withdrawal of her
objections towards the Bolshevik policy. But this fragment of a letter is
quoted by Warski by heart [!!!] while the original text was never published. Thus,
it cannot be used as a subject of serious scientific research or as proof of
Luxemburg’s change of mind.[24] But there is an undated handwritten report by her Polish party comrade
H. Walecki a founding member of the Communist Party of Poland who had long
talks with Rosa Luxemburg at the end of November or the beginning of December
1918 in Berlin
But most clearly the Spartacus program shows that Luxemburg kept her old
view concerning the majority principle in a socialist democracy with broad
active participation of the proletarian masses. She wrote it in early December
1918 and it was accepted as the program of the KPD at the founding conference
at the end of December 1918. She rejects any kind of socialist minority
government and the practice of suppression and terror. Proletarian terror
should be used only as strictly defensive weapon against counterrevolutionary
attacks.[26] Just for these parts of
the program concerning the revolutionary power Paul Frölich then a follower of
Lenin protested against these sentences at the founding conference of the KPD
because he assumed this as a hidden criticism towards the Bolsheviks.[27] Altogether we see that
Luxemburg kept her basic democratic thread even in the stormy hectic weeks of
the German revolution.
Hostility against the Bolsheviks or critical solidarity with the
Russian comrades ?
Luxemburg was well aware of the most difficult situation in which the
Bolsheviks tried to realize socialism. But in spite of this she saw the
necessity to remind them of socialist principles and to criticise their errors.
“… but fully to keep silent is impossible,” as she wrote to her Polish comrade
Bratman in September 1918.[28] On the other hand in the
manuscript on the Russian revolution she praises the Bolsheviks for the first
seizure of power by a socialist party to realize socialism hoping that a
successful socialist revolution in Central und Western
Europe would correct the wrong developments in Russia
These lines in her manuscript on the Russian revolution and later on her appreciation and defence of the Russian revolutionaries and the Bolsheviks in her speech at the KPD founding conference[30] seem to be honest and show Luxemburg’s critical solidarity with the Bolsheviks.
These lines in her manuscript on the Russian revolution and later on her appreciation and defence of the Russian revolutionaries and the Bolsheviks in her speech at the KPD founding conference[30] seem to be honest and show Luxemburg’s critical solidarity with the Bolsheviks.
Though rejecting the founding of a Communist International in early 1919
because of the lack of real communist mass parties in central and western
Europe the Spartacus leadership communicated with Lenin. In December 1918
Luxemburg and her leading comrades sent their close follower Eduard Fuchs with
oral messages to Moscow
This was continued after her death by her comrade Leo Jogiches sending a letter to Lenin in early February 1919 with a report on the KPD development and a request for further financial help.[32] Judging from all of Luxemburg’s writings and letters in 1918 it looks as if Rosa Luxemburg shared Jogiches’ opinion which he expressed in a letter very critical of the Bolsheviks to Sophie Liebknecht in September 1918. There he characterized the socialistRussia
This was continued after her death by her comrade Leo Jogiches sending a letter to Lenin in early February 1919 with a report on the KPD development and a request for further financial help.[32] Judging from all of Luxemburg’s writings and letters in 1918 it looks as if Rosa Luxemburg shared Jogiches’ opinion which he expressed in a letter very critical of the Bolsheviks to Sophie Liebknecht in September 1918. There he characterized the socialist
Final
Remarks:
Rosa Luxemburg’s criticism of Lenin’s ultra centralistic party concept
in 1904 and in 1918 was not an occasional
polemic due to a special political situation but has its origin in the fundamental
differences on the way to realize socialism. Otherwise Luxemburg recognized that
the Bolsheviks had made as the first party the successful attempt for a
socialist revolution. And
she was hoping that the Bolsheviks would change the methods she criticised if
the European or at least the German revolution were to succeed. Luxemburg and the Bolsheviks
had in common the socialist goal but differed in the method of realisation. For Rosa Luxemburg socialism could not be realised except in a process
with complete freedom for all proletarians, without suppression of the ones
thinking differently. This was for her the implicit prerequisite for assuring
the most active and creative participation of the working class in developing a
socialist society with equal social, economic and political rights for all citizens.
It is a tragedy for the development of the
socialist or communist movement (probably even for the European and world
history) that Luxemburg’s way of socialism was strongly weakened in 1919 and in
the following years by her murder and the murder of many of her comrades by the
reactionary forces in Germany
[1] Rosa Luxemburg: Die russische Revolution. Eine kritische Würdigung,
aus dem Nachlaß, hrsg. und eingeleitet von Paul Levi, Berlin 1922; the text of
the original manuscript in: Rosa Luxemburg: Gesammelte Werke, Bd. 4, August
1914 bis Januar 1919, hrsg. von der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung Gesellschaftsanalyse
und Politische Bildung e. V., wissenschaftliche Betreuung der 6. Auflage:
Annelies Laschitza, 6., überarbeitete Auflage, Berlin 2000 (further quoted: Rosa
Luxemburg: GW, Bd. 4), pp. 332-365. Adolf Warski: Rosa Luxemburgs Stellung zu den taktischen Problemen der Revolution,
Hamburg 1922 (further quoted: Warski). Clara Zetkin: Um Rosa Luxemburgs
Stellung zur russischen Revolution, Hamburg 1922. Peter Nettl: Rosa Luxemburg,
Köln/Berlin 1965, pp.752-755, also: pp. 680-682.
[2] Annelies
Laschitza: Zum Umgang mit Rosa Luxemburg in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, in: BZG – Beiträge zur
Geschichte der Arbeiterbewegung, Jg. 33 (1991), H.4, pp. 435-452; Klaus Kinner: Die Luxemburg-Rezeption in KPD und Komintern,
in: Rosa Luxemburg im internationalen Diskurs. Internationale Rosa-Luxemburg-Gesellschaft
in Chicago, Tampere, Berlin und Zürich (1998-2000), hrsg. von Narihiko Ito, Annelies
Laschitza, Ottokar Luban, Berlin 2002, pp.
191-200; Ottokar Luban: Die Stellung der SED zu Rosa Luxemburg, in: ibd., pp.
156-160; Gilbert Badia: Rosa-Luxemburg-Rezeption im 20. Jahrhundert, in: ibd.,
pp.174-190; Hermann Weber: Rosa Luxemburg zwischen Ost und West:
Instrumentalisierung im Kalten Krieg bis
1990, in: Mitteilungsblatt des Instituts für soziale Bewegungen
[Ruhruniversität Bochum],
Nr.29/2003, pp. 7- 18.
[3] The Rosa Luxemburg Reader, edited by Peter
Hudis & Kevin B. Anderson, New York 2004 (further quoted: Rosa Luxemburg Reader),
p. 250; Rosa Luxemburg: Gesammelte Werke, Bd. 1, 1893-1903, 2.
Halbband, hrsg. von der
Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung Gesellschaftsanalyse und Politische Bildung e. V.,
wissenschaftliche Betreuung der 7. Auflage: Annelies Laschitza, 7., überarbeitete
Auflage, Berlin 2000 (further quoted: Rosa Luxemburg: GW, Bd. 1 / 2), pp. 425-426.
[7] Rosa Luxemburg Reader, p. 266–280; Feliks Tych (ed.):
Ein unveröffentlichtes Manuskript von Rosa Luxemburg zur Lage in der russischen
Sozialdemokratie, in: IWK – Internationale wissenschaftliche Korrespondenz zur
Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung, Jg. 27 (1991), H.3, pp. 339-343
(introduction), pp. 344–357.
[12] Rosa Luxemburg Reader, pp.197-199; Rosa Luxemburg: Gesammelte Werke, Bd. 2, 1906 – Juni 1911, hrsg. von
der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung Gesellschaftsanalyse und Politische Bildung e.
V., wissenschaftliche Betreuung der 6. Auflage: Annelies Laschitza, 6.,
überarbeitete Auflage, Berlin 2004,
pp. 132-134, p. 139.
[17]Rosa Luxemburg Reader, p. 304; Rosa Luxemburg: GW, Bd. 4, p. 358.
[18] Gilbert Badia: Clara Zetkin. Eine neue
Biographie, Berlin 1994, pp. 158-161; Offenes Schreiben Franz Mehrings vom 3.
Juni 1918 an die Bolschewiki, in:
Dokumente und Materialien zur Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung, Reihe
II, 1914-1945, Bd. 2: November 1917 -
Dezember 1918, hrsg. vom Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED, Berlin
1957, pp. 158 – 162.
[19] Sibylle Quack: Geistig frei und niemandes
Knecht. Paul Levi / Rosa Luxemburg. Politische Arbeit und persönliche
Beziehung. Mit 50 unveröffentlichten Briefen, geringfügig veränderte
Taschenbuchausgabe, Frankfurt/Main, Berlin 1986, pp.133 -136, pp.169-176.
[20] Karl Liebknecht to Sophie Liebknecht, July 6,
1918, and August 12, 1918, in: Karl Liebknecht: Gesammelte Reden und Schriften,
Bd. IX,
Mai 1915 – 15. Januar 1919, hrsg.
vom Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED, Berlin 1968, p. 545, p.
557.
[21] Russian State Archive for Social
Political History [RGASPI], Moscow
[24] Warski, p. 6-7; Paul Frölich: Rosa Luxemburg. Gedanke und Tat. Mit
einem Nachwort von Iring Fetscher, 4th edition, Frankfurt/Main 1973, p. 298 with
annotation 25. Rosa Luxemburg: Gesammelte Briefe, Bd. 6, hrsg. von Annelies
Laschitza, Berlin 1993 (further quoted: Rosa Luxemburg: Ges. Briefe, 6), p. 211.
[25] RGASPI, Moscow, f. 495, op. 124, d. 539,
sheet 41 reverse.
[27] Speech by Paul Frölich, in: Die Gründung der
KPD. Protokoll und Materialien des Gründungsparteitages
der Kommunistischen Partei Deutschlands1918/19. Mit einer Einführung zur
angeblichen Erstveröffentlichung durch die SED, hrsg. und eingeleitet von Hermann
Weber, Berlin 1993, pp. 202-203.
[28] Rosa
Luxemburg to Stefan Bratman-Brodowski, September 3, 1918, in: Rosa Luxemburg: Ges. Briefe, 6, pp. 206-208, quotation: p. 207.
[32] Leo
Jogiches to Lenin, February 4, 1919, in: Ruth Stoljarowa: Vor 80 Jahren wurde
Leo Jogiches ermordet. Vier unbekannte oder vergessene Dokumente aus den Jahre
1917-1919, in: Beiträge zur Geschichte
der Arbeiterbewegung, Jg. 40 (1998), H. 4, pp. 65-82, here: pp. 72-74
[33] Leo Jogiches to Sophie Liebknecht, September
7, 1918, in: Feliks Tych/Ottokar Luban: Die Spartakusführung zur Politik der
Bolschewiki. Ein Kassiber Leo Jogiches’ aus dem Gefängnis an Sophie Liebknecht vom 7.
September 1918, in: IWK – Internationale wissenschaftliche Korrespondenz zur
Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung, Jg. 33 (1997), H.1, pp. 92-102,
here: p. 100.
Ottokar Luban
Historian
Eisenacher Str.
43
10823 Berlin
Germany Tel./Fax: 0049 30 781 72 68 e-mail: oluban@gmx.de
.jpg)
