What do you think?
Rate this book
Reform or Revolution and Other Writings
Contains:
- "Reform or Revolution"
- "Leninism or Marxism"
- "The Mass Strike"
- "The Russian Revolution"
In Reform or Revolution (1899) "Red Rosa" Luxemburg explains why capitalism can never overcome its internal contradictions. An effective refutation of revisionist interpretations of Marxist doctrine, it defines the position of scientific socialism on the issues of social reforms, the state, democracy, and the character of the proletarian revolution. "Reform or Revolution" opposes Edward Bernstein's revisionist theories, which rejected Marxism in favor of trade unionism and parliamentary procedures. Luxemburg offers articulate and reasoned objections to all of Bernstein's arguments. This essay remains a key explanation of why there can be no parliamentary road to socialism.
- "Reform or Revolution"
- "Leninism or Marxism"
- "The Mass Strike"
- "The Russian Revolution"
In Reform or Revolution (1899) "Red Rosa" Luxemburg explains why capitalism can never overcome its internal contradictions. An effective refutation of revisionist interpretations of Marxist doctrine, it defines the position of scientific socialism on the issues of social reforms, the state, democracy, and the character of the proletarian revolution. "Reform or Revolution" opposes Edward Bernstein's revisionist theories, which rejected Marxism in favor of trade unionism and parliamentary procedures. Luxemburg offers articulate and reasoned objections to all of Bernstein's arguments. This essay remains a key explanation of why there can be no parliamentary road to socialism.
240 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1899
150 people are currently reading
1509 people want to read
About the author
Rosa Luxemburg
494 books870 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
March 7, 2019
It is fascinating to see how much of what Rosa Luxemburg wrote stays relevant to these days. The struggle between reformists and revolutionaries seems fresher than ever as the welfare state became prevalent in post-war Europe which might seem to make the case for Reform, but when analyzed through Rosa's perspective we can see that her point is still right. The situation of the proletariat might have improved but the reformists just play the bourgeoisie's game.
The other texts are even more interesting for their predictive power. The way she describes the mass strikes and how the political parties and trade unions should deal with it sounds like a lesson that should've been heard during the Occupy protests, the 2013 protests in Brazil and more recently with the Gilets Jaunes in France.
He analysis of the ups and downs of the Russian Revolution also ended up being prophetic for being able to call out when the seeds were sown for problems like the kulakization in the Soviet Union and the ground on which its authoritarianism could grow. But it is also important to read this sober account of the revolution to understand why Lenin and Trotsky took so many of the more controversial measures that were needed during such a troubled time as the end of WWI and the revolution.
The other texts are even more interesting for their predictive power. The way she describes the mass strikes and how the political parties and trade unions should deal with it sounds like a lesson that should've been heard during the Occupy protests, the 2013 protests in Brazil and more recently with the Gilets Jaunes in France.
He analysis of the ups and downs of the Russian Revolution also ended up being prophetic for being able to call out when the seeds were sown for problems like the kulakization in the Soviet Union and the ground on which its authoritarianism could grow. But it is also important to read this sober account of the revolution to understand why Lenin and Trotsky took so many of the more controversial measures that were needed during such a troubled time as the end of WWI and the revolution.
November 16, 2022
The four works in this bundle are Reform or Revolution itself; Leninism or Marxism?; The Mass Strike, the Political Party and the Trade Union; and The Russian Revolution.
Reform or Revolution is a take-down of social democracy in the figure of Eduard Bernstein, and while Bernstein himself may not be remembered much now, his positions are more or less indistinguishable from those of recuperated socdems today. They're easily skewered, and—if the past century and a half haven't adequately demonstrated the complete uselessness of gradualism in creating a socialist society for you—Luxemburg skewers them easily.
Leninism or Marxism? attempts to do the same to Lenin and Leninism, which she saw as repeating some of the same mistakes. This one suffers greatly from having been written in 1904, thirteen years before the February Revolution and Lenin's complete vindication; much of what she writes would have been fair enough in the relatively stakeless climate of idle theorising that lies completely outside of direct action—the climate in which almost all theory is produced—but looks obviously silly now, and including this essay in this kind of introductory collection is very unkind.
The Mass Strike was written shortly after the 1905 Russian Revolution, and focuses on the importance of spontaneous mass movements. It's mostly too long and meandering, and it's hard to see what point Luxemburg is trying to make here (apart from the obvious naïve one).
The Russian Revolution of The Russian Revolution, written in jail in 1918 and published posthumously four years later, is the big one. Here Luxemburg walks back many of her specific criticisms of Lenin from Leninism and Marxism? and comes up with a whole lot more, some more legitimate than others (amusingly, she dismisses Lenin's support of Ukrainian self-determination as obviously ludicrous, as if "the people living in the Wasserkante should want to found a new Low-German nation and government!"). The obvious rough edges here (probably the worst one is her thoughtless discussion of the Lumpenproletariat) are almost certainly due to this pamphlet having been left unfinished when Luxemburg was assassinated, so it feels cheap to hold it up to much scrutiny—particularly when it accomplishes so little.
Rosa Luxemburg distinguishes herself from almost all other left theorists of the 20th century—notably the entire Frankfurt School—in actually believing in the possibility of the liberation of the proletariat and being willing to work towards it, but outside of her attacks on the social democrats who would eventually have her murdered, she lacks much of the lucidity (not to mention track record) of your Lenin or your Mao. Maybe it's time to acknowledge she remains prominent mainly because she's the only (European) woman in the field anyone has heard of.
Reform or Revolution is a take-down of social democracy in the figure of Eduard Bernstein, and while Bernstein himself may not be remembered much now, his positions are more or less indistinguishable from those of recuperated socdems today. They're easily skewered, and—if the past century and a half haven't adequately demonstrated the complete uselessness of gradualism in creating a socialist society for you—Luxemburg skewers them easily.
Leninism or Marxism? attempts to do the same to Lenin and Leninism, which she saw as repeating some of the same mistakes. This one suffers greatly from having been written in 1904, thirteen years before the February Revolution and Lenin's complete vindication; much of what she writes would have been fair enough in the relatively stakeless climate of idle theorising that lies completely outside of direct action—the climate in which almost all theory is produced—but looks obviously silly now, and including this essay in this kind of introductory collection is very unkind.
The Mass Strike was written shortly after the 1905 Russian Revolution, and focuses on the importance of spontaneous mass movements. It's mostly too long and meandering, and it's hard to see what point Luxemburg is trying to make here (apart from the obvious naïve one).
The Russian Revolution of The Russian Revolution, written in jail in 1918 and published posthumously four years later, is the big one. Here Luxemburg walks back many of her specific criticisms of Lenin from Leninism and Marxism? and comes up with a whole lot more, some more legitimate than others (amusingly, she dismisses Lenin's support of Ukrainian self-determination as obviously ludicrous, as if "the people living in the Wasserkante should want to found a new Low-German nation and government!"). The obvious rough edges here (probably the worst one is her thoughtless discussion of the Lumpenproletariat) are almost certainly due to this pamphlet having been left unfinished when Luxemburg was assassinated, so it feels cheap to hold it up to much scrutiny—particularly when it accomplishes so little.
Rosa Luxemburg distinguishes herself from almost all other left theorists of the 20th century—notably the entire Frankfurt School—in actually believing in the possibility of the liberation of the proletariat and being willing to work towards it, but outside of her attacks on the social democrats who would eventually have her murdered, she lacks much of the lucidity (not to mention track record) of your Lenin or your Mao. Maybe it's time to acknowledge she remains prominent mainly because she's the only (European) woman in the field anyone has heard of.
May 7, 2023
Väga hea kokkuvõte Rosa Luxemburgi esseedest 19. sajandi lõpust kuni surmani 1919 jaanuaris. Nimiesseees käsitleb Luxemburg kapitalistliku süsteemi "reformimatust", välistades puhtalt ametiühingutest väljakasvava sotsialismi või isegi sotsiaaldemokraatia, pidades siiski vajalikuks revolutsiooni.
Keeleliseks kitsaskohaks on "revolutsiooni" mõiste, mille all võidakse esialgu silmas pidada verevalamist-kodusõda, kuid Luxemburg kinnitab korduvalt, et revolutsioon on ühiskondliku süsteemi fundamentaalne muutus ning ei pea tingimata endas hõlmama vägivalda.
Väga huvitav on ülevaade Vene streikide ajaloost 19. sajandil ning 1905. aasta revolutsiooni analüüs ning miks see ebaõnnestus bourgeoisie jaoks, kuid saavutas laialdast edu proletaarlaste jaoks. Vene streikidest oli palju õppida Euroopa revolutsionääridel, kes jälgisid Euroopa "valgustatud" proletaarlaste tegevusetust-ametiühingustumist, samal ajal kui Venemaal toimus massiline streikimine-vastuhakk, kuid tegutsejateks oli halvasti organiseerunud, aga fanaatilisem, mass.
Luxemburgi analüüs veebruari-ning oktoobrirevolutsioonist tabab vaid aasta pärast toimumist ära Lenini revolutsiooni nõrgimad kohad, sealhulgas kogu võimu koondamine partei kätte, opositsiooni represseerimine ning nõukogude laialisaatmine - radikaalse demokraatia lämmatamine. Muidugi ei tohi unustada oktoobrirevolutsiooni tähendust marksistliku ajalookäsitluse jaoks, kuid analüüsi väärivad Lenini-Trotski tehtud vead Venemaa juhtimisel, kui nad olid üle võtnud maailmasõjast kurnatud Venemaa, kus käis lisaks kodusõjale veel peaaegu igas ilmakaares sõda.
Keeleliseks kitsaskohaks on "revolutsiooni" mõiste, mille all võidakse esialgu silmas pidada verevalamist-kodusõda, kuid Luxemburg kinnitab korduvalt, et revolutsioon on ühiskondliku süsteemi fundamentaalne muutus ning ei pea tingimata endas hõlmama vägivalda.
Väga huvitav on ülevaade Vene streikide ajaloost 19. sajandil ning 1905. aasta revolutsiooni analüüs ning miks see ebaõnnestus bourgeoisie jaoks, kuid saavutas laialdast edu proletaarlaste jaoks. Vene streikidest oli palju õppida Euroopa revolutsionääridel, kes jälgisid Euroopa "valgustatud" proletaarlaste tegevusetust-ametiühingustumist, samal ajal kui Venemaal toimus massiline streikimine-vastuhakk, kuid tegutsejateks oli halvasti organiseerunud, aga fanaatilisem, mass.
Luxemburgi analüüs veebruari-ning oktoobrirevolutsioonist tabab vaid aasta pärast toimumist ära Lenini revolutsiooni nõrgimad kohad, sealhulgas kogu võimu koondamine partei kätte, opositsiooni represseerimine ning nõukogude laialisaatmine - radikaalse demokraatia lämmatamine. Muidugi ei tohi unustada oktoobrirevolutsiooni tähendust marksistliku ajalookäsitluse jaoks, kuid analüüsi väärivad Lenini-Trotski tehtud vead Venemaa juhtimisel, kui nad olid üle võtnud maailmasõjast kurnatud Venemaa, kus käis lisaks kodusõjale veel peaaegu igas ilmakaares sõda.
May 13, 2021
Absolute banger. Genuinely engaging in a way that I find lacking in a lot of classic theory, while still being well reasoned and informative. I didn't necessarily agree with every conclusion reached or point made (especially some of her comments about trade unionism), but in the whole this is exactly what I was looking for. Managed to be both incisive and nuanced, and deal in both more abstract theory and real world implications and compromise. I can't remember the last time I felt this much admiration for an author while reading. I recently got a different collection of Luxemburg's writings and am looking forward to jumping into that too.
Regarding individual sections:
Paul Buhle's intro was a solid grounding in the context of the book, and I think is a real strength of this collection specifically and why I would recommend this despite there being so many other collections which include at the very least the "main" article of this book.
"Reform or Revolution" was a fantastically phrased putdown of reformism. I'm not always the biggest fan of political theory which keeps referring back to an individual, but her commentary on Bernstein here is used to underpin broader points and is easily translatable to modern day DemSocs. Absolutely required reading.
"Marxism or Leninism" was an interesting and balanced take, although the one which stuck with me least.
"The Mass Strike" was a good insight into her views on the utility of mass strikes, of all of the book this was the one I think was most "mind-expanding" for me, and I definitely got a lot of value from it, if again I had a few disagreements with minor points. Great contextualising of strikes in a more widespread sense than solely the individual changes they bring about.
"The Russian Revolution" had some great takes - most notably that speaking with some nuance about how some of the actions of Lenin and Trotsky may be justified and necessary but that doesn't mean that they should be enshrined as theoretic virtues, rather as real-world compromises to adapt to their situations. There was some other stuff I agreed less with on "national self-determination" but could see her point of view. Also, as this is the pamphlet Luxemburg was working on when she was assassinated, you can kind of see her thought process in the areas left in brackets in almost bullet-point form to come back to and flesh out as she completed the rest of the work. It was interesting in that light - although also drives home how much I would have appreciated seeing similar analysis from Luxemburg again a decade or two later.
Overall, I cannot praise this work enough. One caveat - I wouldn't necessarily advise this being your first work of leftist political theory, because I think a grounding in the fundamentals at least is necessary to get full value out of the book, but like I say it should be digestible for pretty much anyone anyway.
Regarding individual sections:
Paul Buhle's intro was a solid grounding in the context of the book, and I think is a real strength of this collection specifically and why I would recommend this despite there being so many other collections which include at the very least the "main" article of this book.
"Reform or Revolution" was a fantastically phrased putdown of reformism. I'm not always the biggest fan of political theory which keeps referring back to an individual, but her commentary on Bernstein here is used to underpin broader points and is easily translatable to modern day DemSocs. Absolutely required reading.
"Marxism or Leninism" was an interesting and balanced take, although the one which stuck with me least.
"The Mass Strike" was a good insight into her views on the utility of mass strikes, of all of the book this was the one I think was most "mind-expanding" for me, and I definitely got a lot of value from it, if again I had a few disagreements with minor points. Great contextualising of strikes in a more widespread sense than solely the individual changes they bring about.
"The Russian Revolution" had some great takes - most notably that speaking with some nuance about how some of the actions of Lenin and Trotsky may be justified and necessary but that doesn't mean that they should be enshrined as theoretic virtues, rather as real-world compromises to adapt to their situations. There was some other stuff I agreed less with on "national self-determination" but could see her point of view. Also, as this is the pamphlet Luxemburg was working on when she was assassinated, you can kind of see her thought process in the areas left in brackets in almost bullet-point form to come back to and flesh out as she completed the rest of the work. It was interesting in that light - although also drives home how much I would have appreciated seeing similar analysis from Luxemburg again a decade or two later.
Overall, I cannot praise this work enough. One caveat - I wouldn't necessarily advise this being your first work of leftist political theory, because I think a grounding in the fundamentals at least is necessary to get full value out of the book, but like I say it should be digestible for pretty much anyone anyway.
January 14, 2025
Interesting commentary on whether socialist reformations contribute largely to an increasingly socialist society or if revolution is needed.
September 16, 2017
Here are my study notes for Reform or Revolution.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hq...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hq...
July 4, 2025
Lectura obligatoria
April 14, 2017
The first essay, Reform or Revolution was so on point. An amazing essay that transcends time and place to perfectly sum up my opposition to Bernie Sanders or Scandinavian-style social democrats today. Fair warning, "Social Democracy" was revolutionary when Rosa was writing and she used the term to describe her own political alignment.
The other two essays were less enthralling but still adequate. The end of the Russian Revolution was interesting as she offered apology for Lenin and Trotsky getting a little dictatorial after being subjected to imperialist oppression.
The other two essays were less enthralling but still adequate. The end of the Russian Revolution was interesting as she offered apology for Lenin and Trotsky getting a little dictatorial after being subjected to imperialist oppression.
January 28, 2025
A good collection of writings by Rosa Luxemburg that still resonate today.
"Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party—however numerous they may be—is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept of “justice” but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when 'freedom' becomes a special privilege" (p.214).
"Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party—however numerous they may be—is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept of “justice” but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when 'freedom' becomes a special privilege" (p.214).
November 1, 2021
She's so intelligent - her arguments are actually well-thought-through arguments, which automatically puts her in the highest echelons of Marxist theorists. However, unfortunately, painfully, she has still put herself in the box of Marxist, which automatically makes many of her arguments invalid. This is a shame, and it pains me. Overall, however, her criticisms of both Leninism and Kautskyism deserves credit.
September 20, 2024
I think it'd probably be best to say a couple of things about each essay in this collection.
Reform or Revolution
This is a classic polemic against reformism, and Luxembourg makes some really good points against Bernstein's theories. Most markedly, she points out how reformists that use the language of Marxists are anti-socialists not only because of their divergence from Marx's claims for violent revolution, but by supporting a reform against the most aggressive injustices of the capitalist system they implicitly deny the inevitable failure of capitalism due to its own contradictions. By reforming the system they are acting like they are fighting against, they actually work with it; this elongates capitalism's existence by treating capitalistic injustices as symptoms rather than as fundamental characteristics of the system.
Leninism or Marxism?
I agree with some things in this essay, but Luxemburg often characterizes the vanguard party in overly aggressive terms. At points, her own fear of political consolidation of power imposes itself onto her own analysis of Lenin's work. I think in the next essay, she actually tackles the issues of the vanguard party in a much more nuanced way, so I'll mention it further in my comments on the next essay.
The Mass Strike
It is a common symptom of revolutionary parties to view the upcoming revolution as a singular and glorious event. As Luxemburg points out, this could not be further from the truth. In actuality, revolution is started by disconnected mass actions of the people vs. the injustices that they are experiencing. If a mass strike is to happen at all, it actually happens as a result of the ongoing revolution, it is not a catalyst FOR the revolution itself. The Social Democratic Party in Germany, when they tried to characterize the revolution as a singular action, actually participate in counterrevolutionary thought. By this logic, they have to wait for the conditions to be "ripe" for revolution, and hence, they keep pushing back against revolutionary sentiment because of their own fear of failure and diagnosis of current conditions.
In this essay, Luxemburg also tackles the roles of the political parties and the trade unions, and the ways they work in concert. She often explicitly refers to the Social Democrats of Germany as the vanguard, and this is where her analysis of the role of vanguard parties is a lot stronger. In dialectical thought, we are forced into higher stages of development; this includes the form that political parties and leaders will take. In the previous bourgeois model, leaders take the role of an administrator, but in her own analysis, Luxembourg shows the fusion of concepts that will have to be present in a socialist society. There needs to be a system of communication in place that takes into account the various strengths of parties that are pushing for the revolutionary ideal. In this model, the vanguard party would take on an administrative role, because their strength is organization, but they would serve as a part of a whole, not as a consolidation of all revolutionary efforts. It is a fusion of the concepts of grassroots and administrative politics, and the most likely outcome in the higher stage of development.
The Russian Revolution
This essay is interesting, not only because of its unfinished state, but also because of the ALMOST positive light that she paints Lenin and Trotsky in. While she wholeheartedly disagrees with many of Lenin and Trotsky's ideas, she sees these failures as symptomatic of the incredibly difficult conditions that the revolution took part in. She stresses over and over the need to not idealize the concepts and solutions put forward by Lenin and Trotsky, but rather to see this for what they are, a realistic reaction to their historical conditions.
She does make some incredibly prescient points. Lenin's policy of self-determination to the point of separation did give power back to the bourgeoisie in the areas that chose to separate. Their national character itself was a pushback against an attack on the systems of private ownership. Most amazingly, Rosa's analysis of the land seizure by the peasants supported by Lenin and Trotsky perfectly predicts the future. What this did, instead of publicizing land, was switch private ownership of the land from the hands of the landowners to the peasants. This created the kulak problem, in which newly landed peasants fought back against communism to defend their own private property.
7.8/10
Reform or Revolution
This is a classic polemic against reformism, and Luxembourg makes some really good points against Bernstein's theories. Most markedly, she points out how reformists that use the language of Marxists are anti-socialists not only because of their divergence from Marx's claims for violent revolution, but by supporting a reform against the most aggressive injustices of the capitalist system they implicitly deny the inevitable failure of capitalism due to its own contradictions. By reforming the system they are acting like they are fighting against, they actually work with it; this elongates capitalism's existence by treating capitalistic injustices as symptoms rather than as fundamental characteristics of the system.
Leninism or Marxism?
I agree with some things in this essay, but Luxemburg often characterizes the vanguard party in overly aggressive terms. At points, her own fear of political consolidation of power imposes itself onto her own analysis of Lenin's work. I think in the next essay, she actually tackles the issues of the vanguard party in a much more nuanced way, so I'll mention it further in my comments on the next essay.
The Mass Strike
It is a common symptom of revolutionary parties to view the upcoming revolution as a singular and glorious event. As Luxemburg points out, this could not be further from the truth. In actuality, revolution is started by disconnected mass actions of the people vs. the injustices that they are experiencing. If a mass strike is to happen at all, it actually happens as a result of the ongoing revolution, it is not a catalyst FOR the revolution itself. The Social Democratic Party in Germany, when they tried to characterize the revolution as a singular action, actually participate in counterrevolutionary thought. By this logic, they have to wait for the conditions to be "ripe" for revolution, and hence, they keep pushing back against revolutionary sentiment because of their own fear of failure and diagnosis of current conditions.
In this essay, Luxemburg also tackles the roles of the political parties and the trade unions, and the ways they work in concert. She often explicitly refers to the Social Democrats of Germany as the vanguard, and this is where her analysis of the role of vanguard parties is a lot stronger. In dialectical thought, we are forced into higher stages of development; this includes the form that political parties and leaders will take. In the previous bourgeois model, leaders take the role of an administrator, but in her own analysis, Luxembourg shows the fusion of concepts that will have to be present in a socialist society. There needs to be a system of communication in place that takes into account the various strengths of parties that are pushing for the revolutionary ideal. In this model, the vanguard party would take on an administrative role, because their strength is organization, but they would serve as a part of a whole, not as a consolidation of all revolutionary efforts. It is a fusion of the concepts of grassroots and administrative politics, and the most likely outcome in the higher stage of development.
The Russian Revolution
This essay is interesting, not only because of its unfinished state, but also because of the ALMOST positive light that she paints Lenin and Trotsky in. While she wholeheartedly disagrees with many of Lenin and Trotsky's ideas, she sees these failures as symptomatic of the incredibly difficult conditions that the revolution took part in. She stresses over and over the need to not idealize the concepts and solutions put forward by Lenin and Trotsky, but rather to see this for what they are, a realistic reaction to their historical conditions.
She does make some incredibly prescient points. Lenin's policy of self-determination to the point of separation did give power back to the bourgeoisie in the areas that chose to separate. Their national character itself was a pushback against an attack on the systems of private ownership. Most amazingly, Rosa's analysis of the land seizure by the peasants supported by Lenin and Trotsky perfectly predicts the future. What this did, instead of publicizing land, was switch private ownership of the land from the hands of the landowners to the peasants. This created the kulak problem, in which newly landed peasants fought back against communism to defend their own private property.
7.8/10
April 17, 2025
The book contains 4 writings.
1. Reform or Revolution
2. Leninism or Marxism
3. The Mass Strike
4. The Russian Revolution
I will write a short review on each of these.
1. In "Reform or Revolution", Rosa takes an aim at Bernstein and the whole idea that capitalism can just be gradually reformed into something better(lol never)... she explains how reforms are just temporary victories against the ruling class that they can snatch back whenever they feel like it. It’s a decent introduction to socialist ideas, maybe not the absolute easiest read, but essential.
I am not sure if in this or mass strikes she mentions that cooperatives and trade unions, while useful tools, aren't the ultimate answer for the liberation of the entire working class...
The goal isn't just to make the poor a bit richer within the same rotten system; it's about tearing down that system and building something new. 🚩
2. In "Leninism or Marxism", Rosa critiques some of Lenin's views on party organization, more specific his attraction to centralism, she was worrying about the risk of centralism and bureaucracy ruining the initiative of the masses. Her points about the importance of mass action and spontaneity are valuable, but from my point of view I think she underestimates the need for a disciplined VANGUARD party (especially given the conditions Lenin faced).
The text is important for understanding debates within revolutionary Marxism... I lean though towards Lenin's organizational approach.
3. In "The Mass Strike", Rosa presents the lessons of the 1905 revolution, she dives into the power of the mass strike showing how this erupted from the conditions of that period and the struggles of the proletariat, this unifying and getting them benefits. In the book it's mentioned how much we learn through struggle... through praxis.
It’s not about waiting for millions of people to be perfectly organized or just theorizing endlessly; it’s about action, learning from mistakes, and building momentum! Workers of the world, unite!
4. In "The Russian Revolution", Rosa praises the Bolsheviks for actually doing the revolution and seizing power. But she also critiques the land distribution and most important the NATIONAL QUESTION. I understand this piece of work was unfinished and honestly... I can see why. 💀
She had a bad take on national self-determination, this being seen as a "bourgeois distraction", but as Lenin and Stalin argued, we need to recognise the right of nations to self-determination.
This is necessary to break down the mistrust created by opression and to build a honest international proletariat. (as this is the end goal)
And by ignoring national opression, it's actually harder to get to internatinonalism.. For a better take on this I suggest Stalin's "Marxism and the National Question."
Overall, for all 4 of these combined I will give a 3.5/5.
1. Reform or Revolution
2. Leninism or Marxism
3. The Mass Strike
4. The Russian Revolution
I will write a short review on each of these.
1. In "Reform or Revolution", Rosa takes an aim at Bernstein and the whole idea that capitalism can just be gradually reformed into something better(lol never)... she explains how reforms are just temporary victories against the ruling class that they can snatch back whenever they feel like it. It’s a decent introduction to socialist ideas, maybe not the absolute easiest read, but essential.
I am not sure if in this or mass strikes she mentions that cooperatives and trade unions, while useful tools, aren't the ultimate answer for the liberation of the entire working class...
The goal isn't just to make the poor a bit richer within the same rotten system; it's about tearing down that system and building something new. 🚩
2. In "Leninism or Marxism", Rosa critiques some of Lenin's views on party organization, more specific his attraction to centralism, she was worrying about the risk of centralism and bureaucracy ruining the initiative of the masses. Her points about the importance of mass action and spontaneity are valuable, but from my point of view I think she underestimates the need for a disciplined VANGUARD party (especially given the conditions Lenin faced).
The text is important for understanding debates within revolutionary Marxism... I lean though towards Lenin's organizational approach.
3. In "The Mass Strike", Rosa presents the lessons of the 1905 revolution, she dives into the power of the mass strike showing how this erupted from the conditions of that period and the struggles of the proletariat, this unifying and getting them benefits. In the book it's mentioned how much we learn through struggle... through praxis.
It’s not about waiting for millions of people to be perfectly organized or just theorizing endlessly; it’s about action, learning from mistakes, and building momentum! Workers of the world, unite!
4. In "The Russian Revolution", Rosa praises the Bolsheviks for actually doing the revolution and seizing power. But she also critiques the land distribution and most important the NATIONAL QUESTION. I understand this piece of work was unfinished and honestly... I can see why. 💀
She had a bad take on national self-determination, this being seen as a "bourgeois distraction", but as Lenin and Stalin argued, we need to recognise the right of nations to self-determination.
This is necessary to break down the mistrust created by opression and to build a honest international proletariat. (as this is the end goal)
And by ignoring national opression, it's actually harder to get to internatinonalism.. For a better take on this I suggest Stalin's "Marxism and the National Question."
Overall, for all 4 of these combined I will give a 3.5/5.
December 17, 2025
Reform or Revolution is a take-down of social democracy in the figure of Eduard Bernstein, and while Bernstein himself may not be remembered much now, his positions are more or less indistinguishable from those of recuperated socdems today. They're easily skewered, and—if the past century and a half haven't adequately demonstrated the complete uselessness of gradualism in creating a socialist society for you—Luxemburg skewers them easily.
Leninism or Marxism? attempts to do the same to Lenin and Leninism, which she saw as repeating some of the same mistakes. This one suffers greatly from having been written in 1904, thirteen years before the February Revolution and Lenin's complete vindication; much of what she writes would have been fair enough in the relatively stakeless climate of idle theorising that lies completely outside of direct action—the climate in which almost all theory is produced—but looks obviously silly now, and including this essay in this kind of introductory collection is very unkind.
The Mass Strike was written shortly after the 1905 Russian Revolution, and focuses on the importance of spontaneous mass movements. It's mostly too long and meandering, and it's hard to see what point Luxemburg is trying to make here (apart from the obvious naïve one).
The Russian Revolution of The Russian Revolution, written in jail in 1918 and published posthumously four years later, is the big one. Here Luxemburg walks back many of her specific criticisms of Lenin from Leninism and Marxism? and comes up with a whole lot more, some more legitimate than others (amusingly, she dismisses Lenin's support of Ukrainian self-determination as obviously ludicrous, as if "the people living in the Wasserkante should want to found a new Low-German nation and government!"). The obvious rough edges here (probably the worst one is her thoughtless discussion of the Lumpenproletariat) are almost certainly due to this pamphlet having been left unfinished when Luxemburg was assassinated, so it feels cheap to hold it up to much scrutiny—particularly when it accomplishes so little.
Leninism or Marxism? attempts to do the same to Lenin and Leninism, which she saw as repeating some of the same mistakes. This one suffers greatly from having been written in 1904, thirteen years before the February Revolution and Lenin's complete vindication; much of what she writes would have been fair enough in the relatively stakeless climate of idle theorising that lies completely outside of direct action—the climate in which almost all theory is produced—but looks obviously silly now, and including this essay in this kind of introductory collection is very unkind.
The Mass Strike was written shortly after the 1905 Russian Revolution, and focuses on the importance of spontaneous mass movements. It's mostly too long and meandering, and it's hard to see what point Luxemburg is trying to make here (apart from the obvious naïve one).
The Russian Revolution of The Russian Revolution, written in jail in 1918 and published posthumously four years later, is the big one. Here Luxemburg walks back many of her specific criticisms of Lenin from Leninism and Marxism? and comes up with a whole lot more, some more legitimate than others (amusingly, she dismisses Lenin's support of Ukrainian self-determination as obviously ludicrous, as if "the people living in the Wasserkante should want to found a new Low-German nation and government!"). The obvious rough edges here (probably the worst one is her thoughtless discussion of the Lumpenproletariat) are almost certainly due to this pamphlet having been left unfinished when Luxemburg was assassinated, so it feels cheap to hold it up to much scrutiny—particularly when it accomplishes so little.
June 17, 2022
Three short books by Rosa Luxemburg about the Russian Revolution and it's implications for socialism in early 20th century Europe. This is another book that I largely walked away from feeling like I need more context: Rosa casually mentions events that were recent news for her, but more than a century removed from me. She talks a lot about "scientific socialism", but I am not sure what she means by this. She also thinks that Ukraine's desire for independence from Russia is an inauthentic product of "college professors" that doesn't actually represent popular sentiment; but I don't history has bourn that opinion out.
There were a lot of good insights that I was able to understand, however. Rosa has some prescient criticisms of "party socialism", and criticises the way that land distribution was handled in the early days of the USSR; and my understanding of the history seems to support her criticism quite well. She also had a lot of predictions about the German working class being aroused by populist sentiment while hating the idea of Marxism that eerily prefigure the rise of "national socialism" as an opponent to Marxism in Germany. My biggest takeaway is that those seeking to bring freedom and equality to the world must begin as they mean to go on, instead of succumbing to the temptation of pursuing an easy course first and hoping to overcome their own momentum and change course to their true aims later on. This is, in the end, one of her main arguments in favor of revolution over reform: that contributing to a system of power strengthens that system and winds up making the task of overturning said system later nearly impossible.
There were a lot of good insights that I was able to understand, however. Rosa has some prescient criticisms of "party socialism", and criticises the way that land distribution was handled in the early days of the USSR; and my understanding of the history seems to support her criticism quite well. She also had a lot of predictions about the German working class being aroused by populist sentiment while hating the idea of Marxism that eerily prefigure the rise of "national socialism" as an opponent to Marxism in Germany. My biggest takeaway is that those seeking to bring freedom and equality to the world must begin as they mean to go on, instead of succumbing to the temptation of pursuing an easy course first and hoping to overcome their own momentum and change course to their true aims later on. This is, in the end, one of her main arguments in favor of revolution over reform: that contributing to a system of power strengthens that system and winds up making the task of overturning said system later nearly impossible.
February 9, 2018
4/5
philosophy / political theory
not a series
collage - adult reading level
Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg is a book containing a number of her most famous writings. Social Reform or Revolution: Luxemburg writes about her opinion on whether leftist ideas could be established through democratic reform or only with a revolution. she does this by criticizing the works of Edward Bernstein and presenting her own ideas on what Bernstein's work states. Leninism or Marxism: in this writing, Luxemburg discusses her opinion on and the differences between Leninism and Marxism. The Mass Strike, the Political Party, and the Trade Union: in this writing, she writes on the effectiveness and usefulness of The Mass Strike, the Political Party, and the Trade Union by using the real world examples of the mass strikes and protests of pre-revolution Russia. The Russain Revolution: in the last writing Luxemburg explains the lead-up and early parts of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia whilst interjecting her opinions on the matter.
I enjoyed reading this because it offered a unique perspective on events of this time as well as presenting many good ideas on philosophy, politics, and economics. if you are interested in left-wing political thought then I would recommend this book to you but it is hard to read and would be very boring to anyone without an interest in it.
philosophy / political theory
not a series
collage - adult reading level
Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg is a book containing a number of her most famous writings. Social Reform or Revolution: Luxemburg writes about her opinion on whether leftist ideas could be established through democratic reform or only with a revolution. she does this by criticizing the works of Edward Bernstein and presenting her own ideas on what Bernstein's work states. Leninism or Marxism: in this writing, Luxemburg discusses her opinion on and the differences between Leninism and Marxism. The Mass Strike, the Political Party, and the Trade Union: in this writing, she writes on the effectiveness and usefulness of The Mass Strike, the Political Party, and the Trade Union by using the real world examples of the mass strikes and protests of pre-revolution Russia. The Russain Revolution: in the last writing Luxemburg explains the lead-up and early parts of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia whilst interjecting her opinions on the matter.
I enjoyed reading this because it offered a unique perspective on events of this time as well as presenting many good ideas on philosophy, politics, and economics. if you are interested in left-wing political thought then I would recommend this book to you but it is hard to read and would be very boring to anyone without an interest in it.
July 5, 2025
Rosa Luxemburg is an enthralling figure for a number of reasons. What stands out about her in the selected texts in this book is her ability to prognosticate based on the facts present as well as her ability to self-reflect. Luxemburg is at her best when she gets straight to the point, which is why the Mass Strike section is the weakest in the book. The meandering of that section isn't present throughout, but rather a scathing critique of the world as well as a roadmap for what needs to be done and the questions to be asked.
December 26, 2024
Crazy to think a book written over a hundred years ago still has so many relevant takes in today’s society. She does a great job refuting a lot of discussions on early on in the book and makes a strong case throughout the book that the proletariat must come together. One of my favorite things about this is how she mentions economic policy and political policy are not two separate issues, but rather one large issue.
February 23, 2026
the most dangerous woman in all of Europe a model of communist thought that is powerful and thought provoking. I don't usually read a lot of political theory that is so easy to pick up. easy to interpret and understand. her words are a Battle cry or as important now as they were then a revolution are still on. it will be found a million more times until the proletariat gain their voice
September 3, 2019
Required reading for any leftist. Luxemburg brilliantly breaks down the problem of attempting to realize socialism within bourgeois democracy, and her additional essays concerning the Soviet Union are equally balanced and enlightening.
Read
February 18, 2022This is a nice example of Rosa Luxemburg's thinking process and polemical style of writing. For me, the last essay was perhaps the most interesting and thought provoking but unfortunately is not finished and is somewhat fragmented.
June 25, 2022
Great foundational book. Rosa writes on the importance of organizing, how capitalism may never be reformed; however we should always work to improve our material conditions where possible, and helpful critiques of the Russian revolution and the building blocks it has on future socialist endeavors.
December 23, 2024
One of the best and most engaging theory books ever written. Rosa Luxemburg, and especially this magnum opus of hers, should be required reading for anyone who wants to understand leftist theory and praxis.
January 2, 2025
fundamental to my worldview
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 25, 2026
I read this book last year, and still think about it so bumping up to 4 stars. The language is rather dense and written in the typical cadence of 19th century writing, and there was certain historical context of Central and Eastern Europe that went over my head. I learned a little bit about czarist Russia and the ongoing mass strikes that were repeatedly crushed, reforms that were occasionally won and then taken away, all leading up to the Russian Revolution. I think most Americans are not familiar with this history at all, and it's an important context to read.
Her critiques of Bernstein can easily be applied to any Democratic Socialist/Social Democrat to this day. Her initial criticisms of what she sees as the inherent authoritarianism of democratic centralism and Lenin are prescient, although she does reconsider much of this in the last essay where she acknowledges the imperialist aggression the Bolsheviks were up against. I would have been very curious to see what she thought as the Soviet Union progressed had her life not been tragically cut short.
Her critiques of Bernstein can easily be applied to any Democratic Socialist/Social Democrat to this day. Her initial criticisms of what she sees as the inherent authoritarianism of democratic centralism and Lenin are prescient, although she does reconsider much of this in the last essay where she acknowledges the imperialist aggression the Bolsheviks were up against. I would have been very curious to see what she thought as the Soviet Union progressed had her life not been tragically cut short.
October 6, 2008
Rosa Luxemburg weighed in definitively at a very young age on the question of reform or revolution in this important text, and forever demolished the perspective of Socialism via reform. By deconstructing Bernstein's work, Luxumberg reveals how reformism fails to address the inherent contradictions of capitalism in the way Marx has shown. Consequently, reformism fails to penetrate at the true nature of capital, and is unable to overturn it. Social revolution is the only way to Socialism, for the means of production themselves must be transferred to the working class for economic justice to be achieved. Although Luxemburg made some incorrect assessments of the Bolsheviks and her own SDP, her insightful political texts such as Reform or Revolution and The Mass Strike will continue to be important for workers of the world.
April 25, 2013
Explains perfectly what is wrong with our current form of capitalism, the destruction of union abilities, and our lack of democracy. And it was written in 1890!! The language is very easy to understand, but she does use Marxian economic confusing language here and there.
Excellent mathematical prove against the social democracy movement. She does contradict herself slightly (very slightly), for instance, she give's out about social democracies teleological foundation for not being scientific, then goes on to use the teleological libertarian theories. But this would be my only one criticism.
Excellent mathematical prove against the social democracy movement. She does contradict herself slightly (very slightly), for instance, she give's out about social democracies teleological foundation for not being scientific, then goes on to use the teleological libertarian theories. But this would be my only one criticism.
June 25, 2014
This is a great collection of Luxemburg's writings. When you take account of the history that came after she died it's amazing just how prescient she was.
June 30, 2021
Great ideas, difficult read.
October 5, 2022
Is good stuff in it right but a lot of it i already knew and it was written a little boring idk
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews