What do you think?
Rate this book
Leninism or Marxism? Organizational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy
2021 Reprint of the 1935 Edition. Leninism or Marxism? was first published as an article in 1904 under the title "Organizational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy" and later reprinted in pamphlet form titled Marxism vs. Leninism in 1935 by the Anti-Parliamentary Communist Federation.
Rosa Luxemburg's critique of Lenin's concept of revolutionary organization show the disagreements within the Marxist movements in Europe in the years preceding 1917; her comparisons with Blanquism and chillingly accurate predictions of the consequences of such organization in a successful revolution are incredibly important to an understanding of the differing interpretations of Marx at that time in relation to the State and its relationship with workers.
Rosa Luxemburg's critique of Lenin's concept of revolutionary organization show the disagreements within the Marxist movements in Europe in the years preceding 1917; her comparisons with Blanquism and chillingly accurate predictions of the consequences of such organization in a successful revolution are incredibly important to an understanding of the differing interpretations of Marx at that time in relation to the State and its relationship with workers.
Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 1971
155 people want to read
About the author
Rosa Luxemburg
490 books864 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 - 11 of 11 reviews
December 21, 2020
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.
April 15, 2023
Fascinating article. On the one hand, it reflects a perspective that Rosa herself would acknowledge as a mistake, tragically far too late for both her and the rest of the German working class. On the other, with some things that should be looked at critically, it reflects a lot of valuable lessons for Marxists today, particularly in combatting sectarianism and disconnection from the struggle. The article bends too far towards spontaneity, but this has to be understood as how Rosa sought to fight against the strengthening opportunist trend in German Social-Democracy, who sought to stifle the revolutionary movement of the workers.
One of the most valuable tools that the ruling class has used across history is the tactic of division, pitting one layer of the oppressed against another. Just the same way, both the conscious and unwitting agents of the bourgeois try to divide the great Marxist revolutionaries, make their ideas seem opposed. For this case, it’s done by heaping on slander and distortions and erasing about 13 years of history. When it comes to Lenin and Rosa, both Stalinists and Reformists have played into this counter-revolutionary obscuring of Lenin and Rosa’s ideas in their own ways.
The fact is, Rosa and Lenin stood for the exact same principles. Points on this article that they both agree include: that no organizational form is a panacea; that the leadership can’t become disconnected from the ranks; that it is impossible to declare the revolution without the active participation of the masses. They also understood that open discussion directed at united action is the necessary way to build up revolutionaries. If they didn’t, why would Lenin publish this critique in the Bolshevik paper a year after the split at the second congress? They were both implacable in their struggle against opportunism in all its forms, in building the forces of the revolutionary working class and its ideas.
The fact that this article contains mistakes gives it a strength. It can be incredibly useful as a way to understand how even one of the greatest Marxists and revolutionaries in history could be wrong on one of the most key questions. The lessons of the past are not dry facts, they are the material result of the living breathing struggle. How you arrive at a point is inseparable from the point itself.
One of the most valuable tools that the ruling class has used across history is the tactic of division, pitting one layer of the oppressed against another. Just the same way, both the conscious and unwitting agents of the bourgeois try to divide the great Marxist revolutionaries, make their ideas seem opposed. For this case, it’s done by heaping on slander and distortions and erasing about 13 years of history. When it comes to Lenin and Rosa, both Stalinists and Reformists have played into this counter-revolutionary obscuring of Lenin and Rosa’s ideas in their own ways.
The fact is, Rosa and Lenin stood for the exact same principles. Points on this article that they both agree include: that no organizational form is a panacea; that the leadership can’t become disconnected from the ranks; that it is impossible to declare the revolution without the active participation of the masses. They also understood that open discussion directed at united action is the necessary way to build up revolutionaries. If they didn’t, why would Lenin publish this critique in the Bolshevik paper a year after the split at the second congress? They were both implacable in their struggle against opportunism in all its forms, in building the forces of the revolutionary working class and its ideas.
The fact that this article contains mistakes gives it a strength. It can be incredibly useful as a way to understand how even one of the greatest Marxists and revolutionaries in history could be wrong on one of the most key questions. The lessons of the past are not dry facts, they are the material result of the living breathing struggle. How you arrive at a point is inseparable from the point itself.
October 31, 2024
Luxemburg offers a robust critique of Lenin's theories on centralized leadership within a social democracy. In general, she seems to oppose centralized leadership of any kind and uses the Russian labor movement as a case study. Her argument is specific to the state of the Russian labor movement circa 1904, arguing that the movement's structure was highly vulnerable to cooptation from bourgeois opportunists. I appreciated her argument that you cannot distinguish or separate the social democracy, or its leadership, from the working class. However, I am not necessarily opposed to centralized leadership within a movement so long as it is comprised of the working class and allows the masses to partake in decision making. That being said, I think Luxemburg is right to warn that centralism is vulnerable to bourgeois cooptation that could potentially undermine a social democracy.
January 24, 2026
But here is the »ego« of the Russian revolutionary again! Pirouetting on its head, it once more proclaims itself to be the all-powerful director of history—this time with the title of His Excellency the Central Committee of the Social Democratic Party of Russia.
The nimble acrobat fails to perceive that the only »subject« which merits today the role of director is the collective »ego« of the working class. The working class demands the right to make its mistakes and learn the dialectic of history. Let us speak plainly. Historically, the errors committed by a truly revolutionary movement are infinitely more fruitful than the infallibility of the cleverest Central Committee.
The nimble acrobat fails to perceive that the only »subject« which merits today the role of director is the collective »ego« of the working class. The working class demands the right to make its mistakes and learn the dialectic of history. Let us speak plainly. Historically, the errors committed by a truly revolutionary movement are infinitely more fruitful than the infallibility of the cleverest Central Committee.
February 7, 2022
Tens o meu coração Rosinha:
"Não é partindo da disciplina nele inculcada pelo Estado capitalista, com a mera transferência da batuta da mão da burguesia para a de um comitê central socialdemocrata, mas pela quebra, pelo extirpamento desse espírito de disciplina servil, que o proletariado pode ser educado para a nova disciplina, a autodisciplina voluntária da socialdemocracia"
"O socialismo socialdemocratico tenha um carácter coordenador, unificador, e não um carácter regulamentador e fechado. Porém, se este espírito de liberdade política do movimento, ligado a uma penetrante visão da unidade do movimento e da fidelidade aos princípios, tiver tomado lugar nas fileiras do partido, então os defeitos de qualquer estatuto, mesmo o mais ineptamente concebido, experimentarão, em breve, eficaz correção através da própria práxis"
"Não é partindo da disciplina nele inculcada pelo Estado capitalista, com a mera transferência da batuta da mão da burguesia para a de um comitê central socialdemocrata, mas pela quebra, pelo extirpamento desse espírito de disciplina servil, que o proletariado pode ser educado para a nova disciplina, a autodisciplina voluntária da socialdemocracia"
"O socialismo socialdemocratico tenha um carácter coordenador, unificador, e não um carácter regulamentador e fechado. Porém, se este espírito de liberdade política do movimento, ligado a uma penetrante visão da unidade do movimento e da fidelidade aos princípios, tiver tomado lugar nas fileiras do partido, então os defeitos de qualquer estatuto, mesmo o mais ineptamente concebido, experimentarão, em breve, eficaz correção através da própria práxis"
August 25, 2024
Enorm skillnad på hennes tankar om taktik, strategi och partiformen mellan denna skrivelse och hennes skrivelse ”ryska revolutionen” 14 år senare.
Inte konstigt kanske, för fjorton år sen var jag 8 liksom.
Inte konstigt kanske, för fjorton år sen var jag 8 liksom.
November 3, 2024
Inaccurate depiction of how Lenin's party worked, but it does have a really good analysis of the conditions of socialism in Germany at the time. Its also pretty interesting to see Rosa's idea of democracy in a revolution. I'm a DSAer so I take a lot of stake in that.
January 20, 2022
Re-read
January 6, 2023
6/10, meh
October 25, 2025
Very clearly and concisely summarizes the problems with Lenin’s antagonistic approach to the soviets, but also provides many useful insights on the question of effective organization in general.
July 23, 2023
In many ways, this essay offers greater clarity on her position towards Leninist (an anachronism on my part) tactics than her later, better-known work The Russian Revolution. Written in 1904 under the title Organisational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy, the essay critiques the then-quite unknown Lenin's theories of social revolution, primary through his analysis in One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward.
One of Luxemburg's central criticisms of Lenin is his detachment of the revolutionary party from the proletariat itself. She says 'Social Democracy [which, at this time, tended to refer to parliamentary socialism] is not joined to the organization of the proletariat. It is itself the proletariat' (p.83). She adeptly identifies the autocratic tendency inherent in Lenin's concept of the Vanguard party (which she calls "Blanquist" after French socialist Louis Blanqui, who pioneered the concept of a socialist revolution carried through by a small organised elite), arguing with remarkable foresight the 'discipline Lenin has in mind is being implanted in the working not only by the factory but also by the military and the existing state bureaucracy--by the entire mechanism of the centralized bourgeois state' (pp.83-4). These words almost echo some of her later criticisms of the Bolshevik regime in 1918.
Luxemburg elucidates on the contrast between 'Social Democratic centralism' and 'Blanquist centralism'. The former, she argues arises almost autonomously amongst a large contingent of conscious workers and conditioned on the 'possibility for the workers to develop their own political activity through direct influence on public life, in a party press, and public congresses - that is, within the party. The latter however - which she identifies with Lenin - represents to Luxemburg arising inorganically from without the party. Indeed, Lenin distinguishes between the proletariat and the 'intellectuals in our party' as though they are two separate things, and there is an air of paternalism here.
In step with almost all pre-war Marxist scholarship, she posits the conditions for the development of a revolutionary proletariat are not yet ripe in Russia - on which she was proved incorrect by the events of 1917. There is also the argument to be made (and indeed, was made by Lenin) that Luxemburg here had misrepresented Lenin's arguments. Indeed, on paper, Lenin and Luxemburg did share a lot in common. But the pamphlet is useful in its in-depth critique of what became Leninism in practice, and an interesting historical document warning of its potential dangers as early as 1904, which were indeed vindicated after the October Revolution.
One of Luxemburg's central criticisms of Lenin is his detachment of the revolutionary party from the proletariat itself. She says 'Social Democracy [which, at this time, tended to refer to parliamentary socialism] is not joined to the organization of the proletariat. It is itself the proletariat' (p.83). She adeptly identifies the autocratic tendency inherent in Lenin's concept of the Vanguard party (which she calls "Blanquist" after French socialist Louis Blanqui, who pioneered the concept of a socialist revolution carried through by a small organised elite), arguing with remarkable foresight the 'discipline Lenin has in mind is being implanted in the working not only by the factory but also by the military and the existing state bureaucracy--by the entire mechanism of the centralized bourgeois state' (pp.83-4). These words almost echo some of her later criticisms of the Bolshevik regime in 1918.
Luxemburg elucidates on the contrast between 'Social Democratic centralism' and 'Blanquist centralism'. The former, she argues arises almost autonomously amongst a large contingent of conscious workers and conditioned on the 'possibility for the workers to develop their own political activity through direct influence on public life, in a party press, and public congresses - that is, within the party. The latter however - which she identifies with Lenin - represents to Luxemburg arising inorganically from without the party. Indeed, Lenin distinguishes between the proletariat and the 'intellectuals in our party' as though they are two separate things, and there is an air of paternalism here.
In step with almost all pre-war Marxist scholarship, she posits the conditions for the development of a revolutionary proletariat are not yet ripe in Russia - on which she was proved incorrect by the events of 1917. There is also the argument to be made (and indeed, was made by Lenin) that Luxemburg here had misrepresented Lenin's arguments. Indeed, on paper, Lenin and Luxemburg did share a lot in common. But the pamphlet is useful in its in-depth critique of what became Leninism in practice, and an interesting historical document warning of its potential dangers as early as 1904, which were indeed vindicated after the October Revolution.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews