Rosa Luxemburg's "Reform or Revolution"

In this episode, I cover Rosa Luxemburg's short text, "Reform or Revolution."
If you want to support me, you can do that with these links:
Patreon: / theoryandphilosophy
paypal.me/theoryphilosophy
Twitter: @DavidGuignion
IG: @theory_and_philosophy
Podbean: theoretician.p...

[@影山平ら]

This man has read every book lmao wtf

[@williammdsilva]

My friend, thank you. Good break down. One note. On revolution being a succession of baby steps. In this text Rosa calls the revolution a hammer blow. This indicates that it will be rather ubrupt. Part of why people cling to the ideal reformist position is because they fear that ubrupt change, that "hammerblow of revolution". Nothing to lose our chains.

[@thomgiraldo5423]

Thank you so much for this video; i didnt know much about Rosa Luxemburg; and now i believe is one of my favorite thinkers and rebels ever!

[@Simzoid]

Fantastic video to help digest the book and to help explain its key points. Thank you (from a post-grad history student).

[@TheBrettSiler]

Currently reading this book. This was a great overview. Thanks!

[@jameshammond3823]

One of my favorite texts for introducing Marxism to well meaning progressive liberals

[@groghaus1549]

I just wrote a research paper where I covered this book and it's Influence on popular Marxist conception, a lovely piece for sure.

[@niewoczosny6461]

Thank you for that summary!!

[@nopasaran191]

I bought The Rosa Luxembourg Reader for this and always wondered if it was different than Social Reform or Revolution

[@catkeane4554]

So excellent and helpful. Thank you so much!

[@НиколаБећаговић]

such a good explanation!

[@Alex-rb5fs]

helpful thank you. starting a social work program and it is dubious. any recommendations?

[@llamagames6803]

Dont forget to try state and revolution by lenin guys

[@slymnvr242]

ı love this boy...ı will watch all of his video...

[@stuartwray6175]

Lol

[@lostintime519]

Waiting for Lenin.

[@emileconstance5851]

In the current context of deeply entrenched neoliberalism, we would be lucky if we could move toward social democracy---it improved millions of lives under FDR and throughout the so-called New Deal era (roughly 1933-1960s), and it has also had success in many Northern European nations. Universal health care, strong union representation, higher wages, a progressive tax code, a robust social safety net, and an expansion of the middle class, etc.--all of these are achievable, and have even been realized in some nations. Revolution, or Marxian socialism, are simply not achievable for the foreseeable future. Note: I'm primarily talking about the US--conditions for Marxian socialism may be less implausible in some smaller, less conservative nations (of course the US would do all it could to prevent this, by means they've used repeatedly in the past to undermine aspiring, incipient socialist nations).

[@MouldMadeMind]

Social Democracy should never be your goal, it will happen as a consequence of working towards socialism.

[@NoxAeterna-wf4iv]

​​@@MouldMadeMind I wouldn't exactly say that. Like, the biggest fraction of communist party of my country CPI(M), kind of left the path of revolution completely, for quite a few decades now, after they split from the original CPI in 60's. The party has become a social democratic party from a Marxist-leninist one. They have completely become a revisionist party. And I don't see that changing in the near future. Now, the party's a party of elite urban left intellects. At least this is the case in my state. Things are a little different in other States, where CPI(M) also maintains a good hold.

[@thegodmythic2320]

You seem to ignore how the imperial core is only able to fund it through exploitation of the periphery countries but as the rate of profits fall this will become unsustainable. You mention the New Deal when in reality it benefited the labor aristocracy white population within the USA. When the time for a capitalist crisis inevitable arrives, many of these reforms will become undone; on top of that, during crisis fascism will also arise and as seen before the social democrats are ineffectual at stopping it. I'd really like to see how reform would end capitalist exploitation or actually do anything but subdue class consciousness and even compatible with a communist movement as social democrats are essentially just liberals who've shown to betray and suppress socialist movments.

[@AbsoLucian]

Social Democracy is acceptable so long as it's on the road to socialism and if we strive for socialism we will have social democracy

[@Newjawns42]

What are your thoughts on the KZbin channel Unlearn Economics. Their videos tend to advocate for market socialism, similar to what Bernstein was on about

[@sirmclovin9184]

Market socialism is not capitalism. Capitalism allows for the private ownership of the means of production. Market socialism does not, but it instead puts the ownership in the hands of the state and the control in the hands of the workers.

[@pratikgore6536]

@@sirmclovin9184 Market Socialism is a misnomer since wage form still exists in such a society. It is worker controlled capitalism, which is so so so much better than existing capitalism, but still not socialism.

[@sirmclovin9184]

@@pratikgore6536 Well, I don't really agree with that terminology. David Schweickart's model, for instance, is qualitatively and fundamentally different from the capitalism we live in today.

[@sirmclovin9184]

@@pratikgore6536 It's not a wage if you get a cut of the profits, instead of being counted as an expense.

[@pratikgore6536]

@@sirmclovin9184 I will have to read it cuz I have not heard of his name. When I hear Market Socialism I immediately think of Oskar Lange.

[@metrobusman]

The danger of reviewing Lux' book is not reading Bernsteins Preconditions of Socialism. The argument given above might be accurate for some wings of reformism, but doesn't really fit Bernstein. He never abandoned socialism. He argued that the workers were not gaining in revolutionary class conflict, but because of the money workers ere able to claw back from capital they now had a standard of living acceptable to them. It was the responsibility of the party to push the proles forward by agitating for reforms.

[@rinsimon5467]

Capitalism is not inevitable and any so called "Marxists" should be highly critical and skeptical of this preposition, along with the whole hierarchy of civilizations/cultures. In its essence it is race based "science" to think and echo this paradigm.

[@gavinyoung-philosophy]

Marx literally said that Capitalism is an inevitable and necessary step in the progression of world-history towards communism.

[@gavinyoung-philosophy]

@Thatsnotgonnawork Lol since every single Marxist is bound dogmatically to Marxism-Leninism in most revolutionary writings, leading to the suppression of “formalism” and other non-patriotic forms of expression. They’re also very dogmatic about reducing everything to class or ideology.

[@thegodmythic2320]

@tankiegoku you cannot be dogmatic towards a scintific theory

[@thegodmythic2320]

how is it race based science

[@squiglemcsquigle8414]

Who said capitilism is inevitable. Capitilism is an inevitable result of feudalism but neither feudalism or capitialism is inevitable

[@kimcosmos]

When you say anarchistic do you mean anomistic? Because marx said communism grows incresingly anarchistic as the proletariat state withers away when its not needed. I suspect you do not understand what the word means. Sadly Marx was wrong as he did not realise that capitalism can expand forever with finite resources and time. It just needs state recuperation to ensure social reproduction. Social unrest can be expensive. Marx neglected the role of oligopolies, capitalists against capitism - because of his 1 big idea. The crisis of capitalism is like the tragedy of the commons. It assumes unchanging isolation without adaptation. Both are reified ideologies. If Luxemburg is really saying that then she is saying ALL surplus value is required to sustain reproduction. The US has sustained production whilst increasing profits and driving down living standards. Destroying the US does not destroy capitalism it just pushes it towards slavery. Slavery was very productive for those defined as human, just not very competitive or innovative. Demand for consumption will never disapear - on Mars. Her dialectics has stalled in dualism. If you are not with us you are against us. Because she is not engaging in straw man dialectics

[@kevintewey1157]

Debate Infrared please Soon

[@kevintewey1157]

It was hard to extract your point. Revolution or Reform? Yes it's dualistic. So?

[@Anarchist_communist]

Slavery was a very productive??!! 🤬

[@kimcosmos]

@@Anarchist_communist Productive of goods (eg cotton). But stifling of innovation and development and resilience. Similarly unpaid childcare (and welfare) in the family is very productive. Spending all family money on training competitive workers is a massive training subsidy for business. Wage slavery starts at conception.

[@kimcosmos]

@@kevintewey1157 who is infrared?