What do you think?
Rate this book
The Essential Rosa Luxemburg: Reform or Revolution / The Mass Strike
This new, authoritative introduction to Rosa Luxemburg’s two most important works presents the full text of Reform or Revolution and The Mass Strike, with explanatory notes, appendices, and introductions.
One of the most important Marxist thinkers and leaders of the twentieth century, Rosa Luxemburg is finding renewed interest among a new generation of activists and critics of global capitalism.
194 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 2007
58 people are currently reading
2652 people want to read
About the author
Rosa Luxemburg
492 books866 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 - 29 of 29 reviews
June 18, 2017
I have read both her pamphlets long time ago in Arabic. Re-read the first one after that a friend sent me a pdf copy of this edition in English to read the introduction by Helen Scott. I intend to read the Mass Strike later.
I was very touched by the story of Rosa's tragic death when I read about it the first time. Almost 10 years later, on the first day of my visit to Berlin in 2005, i asked my german friend Denis to show me the (presumed) places where Rosa and Leibnekht's decapitated corpses were thrown after being assassinated, even before I head on to the museum to admire Nefertiti's bust (because my dear dad wears it as a gold chain around his neck, my mom's gift to him 42 years ago, so I affectionally associate the artifact to him), or start my planned long daily walks (for long hours during 4 consecutive days) to discover and to photograph the areas around the falling separation wall (obviously, I'm passionate about Egyptology and the history of the WWII)..
Reform or Revolution was written by Rosa (when she was 27, one year after her graduation from Zurich University) in defense of scientific Socialism, against what she has considered a revisionist doctrine of Marxism. Her aim was to demonstrate the fallacy of Reformism preached by Bernstein and its irreconcilability with Marxism.
Intrepid, smart and passionate, Rosa took the initiative to publicly confront the leaders of the SPD and debunk their theoretical justifications for Reformism. She courageously stood up against the intellectual leaders (Later, even Kautsky will reveal his opportunism and support Bernstein), whom Engels contemptuously branded as the “armchair socialists", whereas most of her comrades chickened out or rebuked Bernestein's opportunistic doctrine discretely. On the following congresses of the Party, Rosa (and notably Karl Leibnekht) will lead what will become a minority current within the Party that hitherto proclaims its adherence to the orthodox Marxism, in opposition to the majority wing that approves the doctrine of Reformism which has attracted a large number of new adherences to the Party.
On a side note, whether you are a leftist activist in India, Lebanon, Norway or elsewhere, I am sure that you have took part to this theoretical debate..(*)
Lenin himself has later admitted that she was right when he will publish his famous pamphlet The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, in which he harshly criticizes the Social Democrat's distortion of Marx's ideas on democracy.
Furthermore, he acknowledged, 15 years later, that Rosa was right when he wrote in a letter to Shlyapnikov:
“I hate and despise Kautsky now more than anyone, with his vile, dirty, self-satisfied hypocrisy ... Rosa Luxemburg was right when she wrote, long ago, that Kautsky has the ‘subservience of a theoretician’ – servility, in plainer language, servility to the majority of the Party, to opportunism”..
In her pamphlet, Rosa will strongly defend the same 'revolutionary theory' advocated by Lenin in his famous pamphlet What is to be done?
“Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This idea cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity.”
Throughout her analysis, she will debunk, point by point, the political and economic assumptions made by Bernstein in his articles, collected under the title "The Preconditions of Socialism and the Tasks of Social Democracy". Bernstein argued that the Party must adopt gradual parliamentary reforms for a progressive transition to Socialism, which for Luxemburg is "an attempt to group these currents into a general theoretic expression, an attempt to elaborate its own theoretical conditions and the break with scientific socialism."
Bernstein's arguments in favor of Reformism:
- In Opposition to Marx, he deduces that the capitalist system has shown its adaptability by improving the economic, social and political conditions of the working class. Also, the social contradictions between the classes were decreasing as the middle class was growing, which, according to him, is verified by the absence of recent major violent clashes between the classes.
- the Cartels, trusts and credit institutions are capable to gradually regularize the anarchic nature of the system and to alleviate the antagonisms in capitalism.
- The function of the credits is to expand production and facilitate exchange. They are powerful instruments that have the ability to circumvent the capitalist crisis.
- he argues that parliamentarism and bourgeois legality meant the end of violence as a factor in historical development. Therefore, the Party must renounce the use of violence in order to reach socialism.
- He looked upon the trade unions as a weapon capable of weakening capitalism.
To Bernstein's twaddle, Luxembourg put forward strong arguments to refute with incisiveness his outlook on Socialism:
- The Cartels fail to attenuate the contradictions of capitalism. On the contrary, they aggravate the antagonism existing between the mode of production and exchange. "They aggravate, furthermore, the antagonism existing between the mode of production and the mode of appropriation by opposing, in the most brutal fashion, to the working class the superior force of organised capital, and thus increasing the antagonism between Capital and Labour."
- The role of credits in encouraging speculation, is another factor increasing the instability of the capitalist mode of production.
- The trade unions, Co-operatives and reform movements are unable to oust capitalism.
- The struggle for reforms cannot alter the slave position of the working class, for that the State is a class State, established by the capitalist class and carried on in its interests: “... the present State is not ‘society’ representing the ‘rising working class’. It is itself the representative of capitalist society. It is a class State”.
- The capitalist system can not be superseded by means of the legal forms established by itself, but only by revolution: "The use of violence will always remain the ultima ratio for the working class, the supreme law of the class struggle, always present, sometimes in a latent, sometimes in an active form. And when we try to revolutionise minds by parliamentary and other activity, it is only in order that at need the revolution may move not only the mind but also the hand." Thus, the workers should not abandon the conquest of political power and are compelled to resort to revolutionary violence against exploitation and oppression.
- The labors unions are not a substitute for the liberation of the working class.
This book is interesting. I recommended it even if you don't share her political views. Rosa's pertinent and perceptive writings and the ideas they evoke are as relevant today as the day they were written more than a century ago.
It is also an enjoyable read for the witty remarks, writing style and 'sens de la formule' (even though the economical subjects are never amusing, not a single bit).
Reading how Luxembourg has ripped off Bernstein's theoretical eccentricities and ridiculing him was as entertaining as watching Lisa Lampanelli aka the Queen of Mean (however more articulate, less vulgar) roasting Trump:
"For these reasons, we must say that the surprising thing here is not the appearance of an opportunist current but rather its feebleness. as long as it showed itself in isolated cases of the practical activity of the party, one could suppose that it had a serious political base. but now that it has shown its face in bernstein’s book, one cannot help exclaim with astonishment, “What? Is that all you have to say?” Not the shadow of an original thought! Not a single idea that was not refuted, crushed, reduced into dust by marxism several decades ago!
It was enough for opportunism to speak out to prove it had noth- ing to say. In the history of our party that is the only importance of bernstein’s book.
Thus saying goodbye to the mode of thought of the revolutionary proletariat, to dialectics and to the materialist conception of history, bernstein can thank them for the attenuating circumstances they provide for his conversion. For only dialectics and the materialist conception of history, magnanimous as they are, could make bern- stein appear as an unconscious predestined instrument, by means of which the rising working class expresses its momentary weakness but which, upon closer inspection, it throws aside contemptuously and with pride."
(Mic drop)
(*) This theoretical and political opposition among the leftists was common to all the socialist movements and is still going on over a century later, leading to the schism of major leftist parties.
Exhibit A: France. 120 years ago, after the fall of the Commune de Paris, the FSWF was characterized as "Possibilist" for promoting gradual reforms, before it split few years later into different parties, whereas the famous french Marxist, Blanqui, created the CRC. Then a debate took place about the socialist participation in a "bourgeois government", pushing J. Jaurés to leave and found the FSP.. In 1920 during the Tours Congress the left wing broke away from the SFIO and founded the more radical FSCI to join the Third International. Later it will become the CFP. In 1969 the SP replaces the SFIO.
More recently, the same political oppositions rose among the leftist parties after the disastrous results and consequences of the presidential elections in 2002 for the Left.
So many examples can be cited of the consequences of this ideological debate between reformists and radical marxists on the international level: The devisions of the leftist factions in Greece after WWII; in Peru; in Spain; in Algeria between the nationalist factions during the French colonization; and even the Black movement in USA during the 60s/70s. In his autobiography Seize the Time, Bobby Seale narrates how HP Newton and him founded the vanguard Black Panthers Party upon their fierce opposition to MLK's Pacifism and the Reformists's discourse. Later, Angela Davis, a modern day Rosa Luxembourg, Assata Shakur, and many other black leftist activists will opt for violence and join even more radicalized movements to fight the system.
I was very touched by the story of Rosa's tragic death when I read about it the first time. Almost 10 years later, on the first day of my visit to Berlin in 2005, i asked my german friend Denis to show me the (presumed) places where Rosa and Leibnekht's decapitated corpses were thrown after being assassinated, even before I head on to the museum to admire Nefertiti's bust (because my dear dad wears it as a gold chain around his neck, my mom's gift to him 42 years ago, so I affectionally associate the artifact to him), or start my planned long daily walks (for long hours during 4 consecutive days) to discover and to photograph the areas around the falling separation wall (obviously, I'm passionate about Egyptology and the history of the WWII)..
Reform or Revolution was written by Rosa (when she was 27, one year after her graduation from Zurich University) in defense of scientific Socialism, against what she has considered a revisionist doctrine of Marxism. Her aim was to demonstrate the fallacy of Reformism preached by Bernstein and its irreconcilability with Marxism.
Intrepid, smart and passionate, Rosa took the initiative to publicly confront the leaders of the SPD and debunk their theoretical justifications for Reformism. She courageously stood up against the intellectual leaders (Later, even Kautsky will reveal his opportunism and support Bernstein), whom Engels contemptuously branded as the “armchair socialists", whereas most of her comrades chickened out or rebuked Bernestein's opportunistic doctrine discretely. On the following congresses of the Party, Rosa (and notably Karl Leibnekht) will lead what will become a minority current within the Party that hitherto proclaims its adherence to the orthodox Marxism, in opposition to the majority wing that approves the doctrine of Reformism which has attracted a large number of new adherences to the Party.
On a side note, whether you are a leftist activist in India, Lebanon, Norway or elsewhere, I am sure that you have took part to this theoretical debate..(*)
Lenin himself has later admitted that she was right when he will publish his famous pamphlet The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, in which he harshly criticizes the Social Democrat's distortion of Marx's ideas on democracy.
Furthermore, he acknowledged, 15 years later, that Rosa was right when he wrote in a letter to Shlyapnikov:
“I hate and despise Kautsky now more than anyone, with his vile, dirty, self-satisfied hypocrisy ... Rosa Luxemburg was right when she wrote, long ago, that Kautsky has the ‘subservience of a theoretician’ – servility, in plainer language, servility to the majority of the Party, to opportunism”..
In her pamphlet, Rosa will strongly defend the same 'revolutionary theory' advocated by Lenin in his famous pamphlet What is to be done?
“Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This idea cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity.”
Throughout her analysis, she will debunk, point by point, the political and economic assumptions made by Bernstein in his articles, collected under the title "The Preconditions of Socialism and the Tasks of Social Democracy". Bernstein argued that the Party must adopt gradual parliamentary reforms for a progressive transition to Socialism, which for Luxemburg is "an attempt to group these currents into a general theoretic expression, an attempt to elaborate its own theoretical conditions and the break with scientific socialism."
Bernstein's arguments in favor of Reformism:
- In Opposition to Marx, he deduces that the capitalist system has shown its adaptability by improving the economic, social and political conditions of the working class. Also, the social contradictions between the classes were decreasing as the middle class was growing, which, according to him, is verified by the absence of recent major violent clashes between the classes.
- the Cartels, trusts and credit institutions are capable to gradually regularize the anarchic nature of the system and to alleviate the antagonisms in capitalism.
- The function of the credits is to expand production and facilitate exchange. They are powerful instruments that have the ability to circumvent the capitalist crisis.
- he argues that parliamentarism and bourgeois legality meant the end of violence as a factor in historical development. Therefore, the Party must renounce the use of violence in order to reach socialism.
- He looked upon the trade unions as a weapon capable of weakening capitalism.
To Bernstein's twaddle, Luxembourg put forward strong arguments to refute with incisiveness his outlook on Socialism:
- The Cartels fail to attenuate the contradictions of capitalism. On the contrary, they aggravate the antagonism existing between the mode of production and exchange. "They aggravate, furthermore, the antagonism existing between the mode of production and the mode of appropriation by opposing, in the most brutal fashion, to the working class the superior force of organised capital, and thus increasing the antagonism between Capital and Labour."
- The role of credits in encouraging speculation, is another factor increasing the instability of the capitalist mode of production.
- The trade unions, Co-operatives and reform movements are unable to oust capitalism.
- The struggle for reforms cannot alter the slave position of the working class, for that the State is a class State, established by the capitalist class and carried on in its interests: “... the present State is not ‘society’ representing the ‘rising working class’. It is itself the representative of capitalist society. It is a class State”.
- The capitalist system can not be superseded by means of the legal forms established by itself, but only by revolution: "The use of violence will always remain the ultima ratio for the working class, the supreme law of the class struggle, always present, sometimes in a latent, sometimes in an active form. And when we try to revolutionise minds by parliamentary and other activity, it is only in order that at need the revolution may move not only the mind but also the hand." Thus, the workers should not abandon the conquest of political power and are compelled to resort to revolutionary violence against exploitation and oppression.
- The labors unions are not a substitute for the liberation of the working class.
This book is interesting. I recommended it even if you don't share her political views. Rosa's pertinent and perceptive writings and the ideas they evoke are as relevant today as the day they were written more than a century ago.
It is also an enjoyable read for the witty remarks, writing style and 'sens de la formule' (even though the economical subjects are never amusing, not a single bit).
Reading how Luxembourg has ripped off Bernstein's theoretical eccentricities and ridiculing him was as entertaining as watching Lisa Lampanelli aka the Queen of Mean (however more articulate, less vulgar) roasting Trump:
"For these reasons, we must say that the surprising thing here is not the appearance of an opportunist current but rather its feebleness. as long as it showed itself in isolated cases of the practical activity of the party, one could suppose that it had a serious political base. but now that it has shown its face in bernstein’s book, one cannot help exclaim with astonishment, “What? Is that all you have to say?” Not the shadow of an original thought! Not a single idea that was not refuted, crushed, reduced into dust by marxism several decades ago!
It was enough for opportunism to speak out to prove it had noth- ing to say. In the history of our party that is the only importance of bernstein’s book.
Thus saying goodbye to the mode of thought of the revolutionary proletariat, to dialectics and to the materialist conception of history, bernstein can thank them for the attenuating circumstances they provide for his conversion. For only dialectics and the materialist conception of history, magnanimous as they are, could make bern- stein appear as an unconscious predestined instrument, by means of which the rising working class expresses its momentary weakness but which, upon closer inspection, it throws aside contemptuously and with pride."
(Mic drop)
(*) This theoretical and political opposition among the leftists was common to all the socialist movements and is still going on over a century later, leading to the schism of major leftist parties.
Exhibit A: France. 120 years ago, after the fall of the Commune de Paris, the FSWF was characterized as "Possibilist" for promoting gradual reforms, before it split few years later into different parties, whereas the famous french Marxist, Blanqui, created the CRC. Then a debate took place about the socialist participation in a "bourgeois government", pushing J. Jaurés to leave and found the FSP.. In 1920 during the Tours Congress the left wing broke away from the SFIO and founded the more radical FSCI to join the Third International. Later it will become the CFP. In 1969 the SP replaces the SFIO.
More recently, the same political oppositions rose among the leftist parties after the disastrous results and consequences of the presidential elections in 2002 for the Left.
So many examples can be cited of the consequences of this ideological debate between reformists and radical marxists on the international level: The devisions of the leftist factions in Greece after WWII; in Peru; in Spain; in Algeria between the nationalist factions during the French colonization; and even the Black movement in USA during the 60s/70s. In his autobiography Seize the Time, Bobby Seale narrates how HP Newton and him founded the vanguard Black Panthers Party upon their fierce opposition to MLK's Pacifism and the Reformists's discourse. Later, Angela Davis, a modern day Rosa Luxembourg, Assata Shakur, and many other black leftist activists will opt for violence and join even more radicalized movements to fight the system.
September 30, 2016
'Reform or Revolution' - Timeless source of inspiration, in particular given the lack of balls and imagination (and theory!) of the current left.
May 11, 2016
Well, it took me a month to read the two essays in this collection but I think it's worth it,and i'll probably be returning for reference and encouragement. Luxemburg is smart and sly and quick.
I can't say i fully grasped all the historical references, or all the economic intricacies but my takeaway is affirmed solidarity with our working class comrades and inspiration to act, despite knowing there will be hardships and outright failures.
Recommended and important, though she often gets forgotten behind Marx, Engels, Lenin, and other communist theorists
I can't say i fully grasped all the historical references, or all the economic intricacies but my takeaway is affirmed solidarity with our working class comrades and inspiration to act, despite knowing there will be hardships and outright failures.
Recommended and important, though she often gets forgotten behind Marx, Engels, Lenin, and other communist theorists
January 23, 2019
In Reform or Revolution, Rosa takes no prisoners and demonstrates the error of Bernstein and his fellow reformists/opportunists in rejecting Marx's theory of collapse and advocating for the "progressive" introduction of socialism through parliamentary reforms, social control and trade union struggle. Unfortunately, her views on the state come across as somewhat crudely instrumental.
The Mass Strikes lays down the lessons of the mass strikes of the Russian Revolution in years leading up to 1905 and beyond for the emancipation of the German proletariat under the leadership of the social democratic party. No strike is "untimely" or "ill-prepared" because organizational experience is/has to be acquired through none other than engaging in class struggle itself. But most importantly, mass strikes are not a matter of objective conditions, not of subjective consciousness. Neither trade unions nor social democracy can simply "declare" a mass strike. Rosa stresses the unity for the large part between trade-unions and social democracy and insists that in a revolutionary period the illusion of the independence of political struggle from economic struggle will be dispelled by the almost self-propelled action of the proletariat, joined by the masses.
Rosa's political writings are animated with a certain spirit of sincerity and attention to details.
The Mass Strikes lays down the lessons of the mass strikes of the Russian Revolution in years leading up to 1905 and beyond for the emancipation of the German proletariat under the leadership of the social democratic party. No strike is "untimely" or "ill-prepared" because organizational experience is/has to be acquired through none other than engaging in class struggle itself. But most importantly, mass strikes are not a matter of objective conditions, not of subjective consciousness. Neither trade unions nor social democracy can simply "declare" a mass strike. Rosa stresses the unity for the large part between trade-unions and social democracy and insists that in a revolutionary period the illusion of the independence of political struggle from economic struggle will be dispelled by the almost self-propelled action of the proletariat, joined by the masses.
Rosa's political writings are animated with a certain spirit of sincerity and attention to details.
June 5, 2019
Essential reading for budding leftists. This edition has a forward that is extremely helpful for establishing the context of Luxemburg's work.
December 26, 2020
Should be essential reading in socialist thought, up there with Lenin's The State and Revolution in my opinion.
September 16, 2013
I really enjoyed Reform or Revolution but didn't get as much out of The Mass Strike. The latter just doesn't seem as relevant today as the former. And historically her predictions on Germany's labor struggles didn't really pan out. Still, like it says in the book, it does give some insight into the shaping of the Russian Revolution.
Overall I really recommend Reform or Revolution though. It was, admittedly, a little hard to follow in some areas but a very worthwhile read on the whole. I've read some reviews saying that Eduard Bernstein's reformist ideals have proven to be the better course of action but I think that is being a tad short sighted. Luxemburg concedes that gains have to be made in the here and now along the way toward a true proletariat revolution. As I see it, we've yet to realize this revolution of the masses but I don't know that it is wise to assume its occurrence is some kind impossibility. That's the thing about history. It's never ending.
Overall I really recommend Reform or Revolution though. It was, admittedly, a little hard to follow in some areas but a very worthwhile read on the whole. I've read some reviews saying that Eduard Bernstein's reformist ideals have proven to be the better course of action but I think that is being a tad short sighted. Luxemburg concedes that gains have to be made in the here and now along the way toward a true proletariat revolution. As I see it, we've yet to realize this revolution of the masses but I don't know that it is wise to assume its occurrence is some kind impossibility. That's the thing about history. It's never ending.
December 15, 2022
I found Reform or Revolution to not be particularly interesting or enlightening; the arguments within it that Luxemburg makes seems pretty basic for anyone who would call themselves a communist. That said, I'm sure it served an important purpose at the time.
The Mass Strike, on the other hand, I quite thoroughly enjoyed and got a lot out of. I had previously read a couple of chapters for a reading group, and reading the entire text was a welcome delight. I particularly found useful the discussion within it with regards to the relationship between spontaneity and organisation, which I think precursored a lot of the greater elaborations that were made on this topics from the 1960s onwards by ultraleft and operaist thinkers. The discussions within certainly felt relevant to our current situation in Britain with the ongoing strike wave.
The Mass Strike, on the other hand, I quite thoroughly enjoyed and got a lot out of. I had previously read a couple of chapters for a reading group, and reading the entire text was a welcome delight. I particularly found useful the discussion within it with regards to the relationship between spontaneity and organisation, which I think precursored a lot of the greater elaborations that were made on this topics from the 1960s onwards by ultraleft and operaist thinkers. The discussions within certainly felt relevant to our current situation in Britain with the ongoing strike wave.
July 21, 2017
There is a huge amount of value in these remarkable essays: Luxemburg's forensic dismantling of German Social Democratic reformism at the turn of the century: her vivid narrative of how various tributaries of activism, industrial action and discontent flowed into the great river of Russia's 1905 revolution; her insistence that it is the people and not the demagogues or bureaucrats who carry the baton of history.
Hindsight also reminds us that her hope that capitalism had run its course proved premature; her faith in the party made insufficient allowances for Stalinist counter-revolution; her faith in classic Marxism's belief in the historical inevitability of socialism (what Freire later described as its 'fatalism') has yet to be proven. Indeed, then as now, periods of fascism seem as likely a response to capitalism's great crises as great leaps ahead into progress and liberation: not least within two decades of her untimely and brutal death.
There is a useful historical introduction to these lucid essays, whose translation into English retains great linguistic and oratorical power. Perhaps the introduction is a little tainted by SWP activist Helen Scott's commitment to 'democratic centralism', but it is nonetheless informative, and her use of notes and a selective bibliography are also valuable.
We are in the second decade of another century, where the industrial working class of Western Europe and North America is fragmented and disorganised; where populist national chauvinism is experiencing a revival (and the neoliberal project of market globalisation is hiccupping, though not gone). It is in the attention to material detail, the insistence on strategic imagination, the refusal to confuse means (like elections) with ends (like liberation), her recognition that struggle itself (rather than dogma or wishfulness) will create its most effective forms: it is these things that the essays remain pertinent, even instructive.
Hindsight also reminds us that her hope that capitalism had run its course proved premature; her faith in the party made insufficient allowances for Stalinist counter-revolution; her faith in classic Marxism's belief in the historical inevitability of socialism (what Freire later described as its 'fatalism') has yet to be proven. Indeed, then as now, periods of fascism seem as likely a response to capitalism's great crises as great leaps ahead into progress and liberation: not least within two decades of her untimely and brutal death.
There is a useful historical introduction to these lucid essays, whose translation into English retains great linguistic and oratorical power. Perhaps the introduction is a little tainted by SWP activist Helen Scott's commitment to 'democratic centralism', but it is nonetheless informative, and her use of notes and a selective bibliography are also valuable.
We are in the second decade of another century, where the industrial working class of Western Europe and North America is fragmented and disorganised; where populist national chauvinism is experiencing a revival (and the neoliberal project of market globalisation is hiccupping, though not gone). It is in the attention to material detail, the insistence on strategic imagination, the refusal to confuse means (like elections) with ends (like liberation), her recognition that struggle itself (rather than dogma or wishfulness) will create its most effective forms: it is these things that the essays remain pertinent, even instructive.
May 17, 2020
5 stars for Reform or Revolution. Truly one of the most insightful breakdowns of the paradox of human progress I have read.
3.5 stars for The Mass Strike. The subject matter is urgent and the material informative, but the writing here was less satisfying.
3.5 stars for The Mass Strike. The subject matter is urgent and the material informative, but the writing here was less satisfying.
September 17, 2024
note to self: only read R&R. honestly, i was expecting this to open my eyes to so many new ideas, was not the case and i was a little disappointed. made more comments in class, can’t be bothered to type down here.
March 5, 2011
A woman of faith and hope, a shining example to us all. Her economic analysis is succinct and still one of the best explanation of economic collapse and capital disaster.
October 23, 2012
Haven't read this exact anthology, but read both texts otherwise and Luxemburg is brilliant.
September 26, 2019
Mostly read the Introductions, as I've read the texts already but all involved texts are terrific.
June 10, 2025
Luxemburg's life work remains richly relevant today. Indeed it is almost impossible not to see the current occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq in her description of a world at war in The Junius Pamphlet:
Business is flourishing upon the ruins. Cities are turned into sham-bles, whole countries into deserts, villages into cemeteries, whole nations into beggars, churches into stables; popular rights, treaties, al-liances, the holiest words and the highest authorities have been torn into scraps... Shamed, dishonored, wading in blood and dripping with filth, thus capitalist society stands. Not as we usually see it, playing the roles of peace and righteousness, of order, of philosophy, of ethics—but as a roaring beast, as an orgy of anarchy, as a pestilential breath, devastating culture and humanity—so it appears in all its hideous nakedness.
Global capitalism today is barbarism for huge sections of humanity, condemned to hunger, homelessness, perpetual war, and occupation. But the other side of globalization, the struggle for social justice, can also be seen: in the rebellion against neoliberalism in Latin Amer-ica; in the mass May Day protests of immigrant workers in cities across the United States; in the continuing Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation; in the growing antiwar sentiment of U.S. soldiers who return "home to find need and misery while billions are heaped up in the hands of a few capitalists." And this is Luxemburg's most important lesson for today: "In this moment of armament lunacy and war orgies, only the resolute will to struggle of the working masses, their capacity and readiness for powerful mass actions, can maintain world peace and push away the menacing world conflagration.
While industry does not need tariff barriers for its development, the entrepreneurs need tariffs to protect their markets. This signifies that at present tariffs no longer serve as a means of protecting a developing capitalist section against a more advanced section. They are now the arm used by one national group of capitalists against another group. Furthermore, tariffs are no longer necessary as an instrument of protection for industry in its movement to create and conquer the home market. They are now indispensable means for the cartelization of industry, that is, means used in the struggle of capitalist producers against consuming society in the aggregate. What brings out in an emphatic manner the specific character of contemporary customs policies is the fact that today not indus-try, but agriculture plays the predominant role in the making of tariffs. The policy of customs protection has become a tool for converting and expressing the feudal interests in capitalist form.
Every legal constitution is the product of a revolution. In the history of classes, revolution is the act of political creation, while legislation is the political expression of the life of a society that has already come into being. During every historic period, work for reforms is carried on only in the direction given to it by the impetus of the last revolution, and continues as long as the impulsion of the last revolution continues to make itself felt. Or, to put it more concretely, in each historic period work for reforms is carried on only in the framework of the social form created by the last revolution. Here is the kernel of the problem.
Business is flourishing upon the ruins. Cities are turned into sham-bles, whole countries into deserts, villages into cemeteries, whole nations into beggars, churches into stables; popular rights, treaties, al-liances, the holiest words and the highest authorities have been torn into scraps... Shamed, dishonored, wading in blood and dripping with filth, thus capitalist society stands. Not as we usually see it, playing the roles of peace and righteousness, of order, of philosophy, of ethics—but as a roaring beast, as an orgy of anarchy, as a pestilential breath, devastating culture and humanity—so it appears in all its hideous nakedness.
Global capitalism today is barbarism for huge sections of humanity, condemned to hunger, homelessness, perpetual war, and occupation. But the other side of globalization, the struggle for social justice, can also be seen: in the rebellion against neoliberalism in Latin Amer-ica; in the mass May Day protests of immigrant workers in cities across the United States; in the continuing Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation; in the growing antiwar sentiment of U.S. soldiers who return "home to find need and misery while billions are heaped up in the hands of a few capitalists." And this is Luxemburg's most important lesson for today: "In this moment of armament lunacy and war orgies, only the resolute will to struggle of the working masses, their capacity and readiness for powerful mass actions, can maintain world peace and push away the menacing world conflagration.
While industry does not need tariff barriers for its development, the entrepreneurs need tariffs to protect their markets. This signifies that at present tariffs no longer serve as a means of protecting a developing capitalist section against a more advanced section. They are now the arm used by one national group of capitalists against another group. Furthermore, tariffs are no longer necessary as an instrument of protection for industry in its movement to create and conquer the home market. They are now indispensable means for the cartelization of industry, that is, means used in the struggle of capitalist producers against consuming society in the aggregate. What brings out in an emphatic manner the specific character of contemporary customs policies is the fact that today not indus-try, but agriculture plays the predominant role in the making of tariffs. The policy of customs protection has become a tool for converting and expressing the feudal interests in capitalist form.
Every legal constitution is the product of a revolution. In the history of classes, revolution is the act of political creation, while legislation is the political expression of the life of a society that has already come into being. During every historic period, work for reforms is carried on only in the direction given to it by the impetus of the last revolution, and continues as long as the impulsion of the last revolution continues to make itself felt. Or, to put it more concretely, in each historic period work for reforms is carried on only in the framework of the social form created by the last revolution. Here is the kernel of the problem.
September 10, 2023
Have been curious to read some of Rosa’s works for a while now - she’s a prominent figure of the socialist movement at the beginning of the 20th century; a movement I’d say, devoid of the female character. So I find Rosa’s persistence and relentlessness in her political and moral values in a world of men very impressive.
‘Reform and revolution’ is a response to the theory proposed by Eduard Bernstein and Konrad Schmidt that socialism will arise automatically from the daily struggle of the working class, from reforming the capitalist system. Rosa Luxemburg disagrees and masterfully puts forward arguments why that is not possible, and a constant struggle, rise of the labour force is necessary to overturn capitalism.
‘The mass strike’ explores what the mass strikes mean within social democracy, and how they form in relation to trade unions and political parties. It also discusses the events of the ‘failed’ Russian Revolution of 1905, which Rosa argues it was actually successful, and I agree: from 11-16h/day work shifts, Russian workers succeeded into establishing 8-10h/day shifts, considerable increases in wages, and paid holidays.
I enjoyed reading ‘The mass strike’ a lot more, as I did feel inadequate for not having read Bernstein’s theory first.
‘Reform and revolution’ is a response to the theory proposed by Eduard Bernstein and Konrad Schmidt that socialism will arise automatically from the daily struggle of the working class, from reforming the capitalist system. Rosa Luxemburg disagrees and masterfully puts forward arguments why that is not possible, and a constant struggle, rise of the labour force is necessary to overturn capitalism.
‘The mass strike’ explores what the mass strikes mean within social democracy, and how they form in relation to trade unions and political parties. It also discusses the events of the ‘failed’ Russian Revolution of 1905, which Rosa argues it was actually successful, and I agree: from 11-16h/day work shifts, Russian workers succeeded into establishing 8-10h/day shifts, considerable increases in wages, and paid holidays.
I enjoyed reading ‘The mass strike’ a lot more, as I did feel inadequate for not having read Bernstein’s theory first.
November 5, 2025
This combination of texts is very clearly written, and it gave me plenty of questions (and some answers) to reckon with. Luxemburg's reputation never included how lucid her writing style was, and I think that part of her writing gives her my full respect. While I never walked away quite inspired, I definitely was forced/enabled by Luxemburg to develop my thoughts.
-------------------------------------------------
Not much to say on Reform or Revolution. She wrote in an enlightening/clear way and was willing to take the time to walk the reader through both the problems and her solutions. I valued her discussion of how certain opportunists remove the socialist discoveries in order to provide a pressure release valve for the fatal contradictions of capitalism/the bourgeoisie--a series of contradictions that remains a problem for capitalism post-reform.
As for the Mass Strike, I am on page 129 and concerned about how the mass movement occurs, as she says, as a result of the material conditions and not the ideologues. A question I have not answered so far is that of "diverting" the masses, as she seems to think they are this form of a force of nature at times, towards class consciousness and solidarity rather than reactionary forms of the proletariat (lumpenproletariat). For example, it seems to me extremely plausible that a union-worker based proletarian struggle can adopt both strong anti-capitalist AND extreme protectionist tendencies (on immigration for example), which hardly seems desirable for worker solidarity in modernity.
The history lesson provided in the Mass Strike was fascinating, learning about figures like Father Gapon or Kurt Eisner (you MUST fall down that momentary rabbit hole) was a real treat.
-------------------------------------------------
Not much to say on Reform or Revolution. She wrote in an enlightening/clear way and was willing to take the time to walk the reader through both the problems and her solutions. I valued her discussion of how certain opportunists remove the socialist discoveries in order to provide a pressure release valve for the fatal contradictions of capitalism/the bourgeoisie--a series of contradictions that remains a problem for capitalism post-reform.
As for the Mass Strike, I am on page 129 and concerned about how the mass movement occurs, as she says, as a result of the material conditions and not the ideologues. A question I have not answered so far is that of "diverting" the masses, as she seems to think they are this form of a force of nature at times, towards class consciousness and solidarity rather than reactionary forms of the proletariat (lumpenproletariat). For example, it seems to me extremely plausible that a union-worker based proletarian struggle can adopt both strong anti-capitalist AND extreme protectionist tendencies (on immigration for example), which hardly seems desirable for worker solidarity in modernity.
The history lesson provided in the Mass Strike was fascinating, learning about figures like Father Gapon or Kurt Eisner (you MUST fall down that momentary rabbit hole) was a real treat.
December 30, 2024
This book is comprised of two essays, both of which discuss the tactical approach of the social democratic movement in the early 20th century. This is a very interesting period, as the prospect of a global revolution was very real, as highlighted in the excellent introductory essays written by Helen Scott. I found to be the strongest aspect of both these essays, was the critique of the trade union movement. Luxemburg highlights the structural position of trade unions, as an intermediary between capital and labour. Reminiscent of the work of McAlevey, she warns of the dangers of bureaucratisation, professionalisation and conservative goal setting within the trade union movement, something which is particularly relevant today. A downside of the book is that both these essays were intended to influence specific political events at the time and so the writing style can come across as particularly unbalanced. In conclusion, both these essays provide an interesting insight into a fascinating period of history and provide a convincing argument as to why a socialist movement should not limit the scope of its ambition.
September 22, 2024
Tried reading this from a social democratic perspective to try to understand how both the far left and moderate left leaning center both seem to point to Rosa as an ideological leader, and I still don’t really get it. She makes the case pretty clear for revolution over reform. I guess there’s something to be said for how she lays out the development of the working class through protracted political struggle and to educate themselves through the reform process to understand its shortcomings.
I got caught up in the end of Mass Strike with her take on trade unionist leadership and how detached they are from their rank and file. At first I thought it’s exactly the same here in today’s US, but that’s not the case. There are entirely too many conservative union members and I really don’t know where to begin to reconcile that. Clearly labor aristocracy is very real in the imperial core.
I got caught up in the end of Mass Strike with her take on trade unionist leadership and how detached they are from their rank and file. At first I thought it’s exactly the same here in today’s US, but that’s not the case. There are entirely too many conservative union members and I really don’t know where to begin to reconcile that. Clearly labor aristocracy is very real in the imperial core.
January 24, 2026
Good insights into how trade unionism can complement social democratic parliamentarianism. Although Rosa was not an anarchist, her views on reform vs revolution are something that all radicals can appreciate.
After the end of the German Empire and start of the Weimar Republic, Rosa was an astute observer on how the 1905 Russian labor uprisings offered lessons to be learned in Germany.
She also made a convincing case against “solutions” to capitalism such as expansions to credit and cooperatives. Ultimately, those reforms just increase the amount of capital held by the ruling class and further alienates working people from their labor.
After the end of the German Empire and start of the Weimar Republic, Rosa was an astute observer on how the 1905 Russian labor uprisings offered lessons to be learned in Germany.
She also made a convincing case against “solutions” to capitalism such as expansions to credit and cooperatives. Ultimately, those reforms just increase the amount of capital held by the ruling class and further alienates working people from their labor.
January 5, 2020
The translation of this book could really do with an update. It is quite turgid and will be impenetrable to many, which is a great shame, as Rosa’s message is one that should be widely read.
June 20, 2024
A very worthwhile but challenging read
July 9, 2024
Decent. Some points hold true still today.
February 6, 2026
still highly relevant today!
July 26, 2019
One of the finest novels in the English language, but unputdownable.
Read
June 10, 2016This book is amazingly powerful, and Luxemburg's understanding is both acute and dauntingly thorough understanding.
The first piece included in this compilation is Reform or Revolution, a scathing critique of reformists who believe that capitalism can become 'nicer'. The astounding fact about this work is that the reformist arguments that Luxemburg so ruthlessly tore to shreds over a hundred years ago are the very same arguments that get made today: that capitalism can provide for all of humanity if only there were more, or perhaps less, regulations; that socialism can be brought about through parliamentary democracy; that tariffs, shareholdings, cooperatives, or the middle class are signs that society is heading towards socialism. Luxemburd destroys these arguments and more, and proves that capitalism has never, and can never, provide for all of humanity, and must be overthrown by a workers' revolution.
The second and last piece, The Mass Strike, is particularly pertinent given the current political situation in France. During Luxemburg's lifetime in Germany a so-called Socialist government had been elected and entrenched in the political bureaucracy. Unions had likewise become mechanical and bureaucratic, and strike rates and struggle were down. Luxemburg understood that the mass strikes that occurred in conjunction with the 1905 Russian Revolution were not leading the revolution, but conversely that the revolutionary atmosphere enabled the mass strikes to occur. The truth of this assertion is evident is France today: as I write this, huge demonstrations led by students and young workers have opened the doors for CGT, France's most left wing union body, to begin calling for generalised strikes, a situation not imaginable in recent years, especially given that a supposedly left wing government is in power. Her discussions of the interplay between economic and political struggles (the union movement in France is currently only making economic demands - how long before their demands become political?), and between socialist and union organisations are also pertinent today. There has never been a better time to read this essay.
The introduction to the collection by Helen Scot is also enthralling and tragic, and adds to the must-read status of this book.
The first piece included in this compilation is Reform or Revolution, a scathing critique of reformists who believe that capitalism can become 'nicer'. The astounding fact about this work is that the reformist arguments that Luxemburg so ruthlessly tore to shreds over a hundred years ago are the very same arguments that get made today: that capitalism can provide for all of humanity if only there were more, or perhaps less, regulations; that socialism can be brought about through parliamentary democracy; that tariffs, shareholdings, cooperatives, or the middle class are signs that society is heading towards socialism. Luxemburd destroys these arguments and more, and proves that capitalism has never, and can never, provide for all of humanity, and must be overthrown by a workers' revolution.
The second and last piece, The Mass Strike, is particularly pertinent given the current political situation in France. During Luxemburg's lifetime in Germany a so-called Socialist government had been elected and entrenched in the political bureaucracy. Unions had likewise become mechanical and bureaucratic, and strike rates and struggle were down. Luxemburg understood that the mass strikes that occurred in conjunction with the 1905 Russian Revolution were not leading the revolution, but conversely that the revolutionary atmosphere enabled the mass strikes to occur. The truth of this assertion is evident is France today: as I write this, huge demonstrations led by students and young workers have opened the doors for CGT, France's most left wing union body, to begin calling for generalised strikes, a situation not imaginable in recent years, especially given that a supposedly left wing government is in power. Her discussions of the interplay between economic and political struggles (the union movement in France is currently only making economic demands - how long before their demands become political?), and between socialist and union organisations are also pertinent today. There has never been a better time to read this essay.
The introduction to the collection by Helen Scot is also enthralling and tragic, and adds to the must-read status of this book.
Read
August 18, 2016No rating as I lack the background to do so effectively. I probably should have read a biography or history of German Social Democracy during the period Luxemburg wrote before jumping in to these. Both are difficult essays that rely on an engaged reader familiar with the struggles of the period. "Reform or Revolution" is the more timeless of the two works, and is an interesting read even if the past 100 years does put her argument in a somewhat difficult position. "The Mass Strike" is part recounting of the method's success in Russia and part chiding of the German Social Democrats for believing it to be a tool invoked from party headquarters rather than an eruption of societal need.
June 21, 2015
Luxemburg's painfully dull writing style obscures some fascinating (if sometimes misguided) ideas.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews