ADVERTISEMENTS:
After reading this article you will learn about the conflict between Lenin and Luxemburg.
Though at the beginning there was a cordial relationship between Lenin and Luxemburg, this did not last long. A serious controversy between the two great Marxists surfaced on the issue of spontaneity.
Luxemburg, after studying all the aspects of revolution, drew the conclusion that spontaneity was the vital matter of all revolutions. By spontaneity she did not mean: a blind impulse devoid of ideological self-awareness.
“Not only Marx had predicted the proletarian revolution, but his prediction must itself become a part of the proletarian consciousness in order for the revolution to come about”.
In other words, Marx predicted that a revolution based on the consciousness of the working will ultimately come and that will dethrone the bourgeoisie from power.
In several writings Luxemburg emphasized this idea of spontaneity and she claimed that this idea of spontaneity was vital to Marx’s theory of revolution particularly in March 1903 Luxemburg published an article in which she focused this matter.
Luxemburg said that consciousness, spontaneity, revolution all are closely related issues. The working class, at the very initial stage, must be fully conscious of its own plight or sufferings and that consciousness will inspire the workers to launch a struggle against the exploiters.
Spontaneity comes out of consciousness. The workers will launch a struggle against the capitalists. But instead of spontaneity Lenin emphasized upon the party organisation.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
A central party consisting of few revolutionaries would be the core of any revolution. The Central Committee would accept the absolute responsibility of revolution. Luxemburg calls the idea of Lenin “ultra-centralism” and it is a “piece of opportunism.”
The central party organisation will direct and guide the function of democracy and this is called social democracy.
Following Lenin’s stand it has been said:
“The centralisation of social democracy, based on the two principles the blind subjection of all party organs and their activity, down to the minutest detail to a central authority, which thinks, acts and decides for everyone and secondly, the strict separation of organized core of the party from the surrounding milieu, as Lenin would have it, seems to us no more or less than a mechanical transference of the Blanquist principles of the organisation of conspiratorial groups to the social democratic movement of the working class”.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The point to be emphasized is that Luxemburg did not accept Lenin’s excessive faith on the “ultra-centralism” Lenin could not lay his confidence on the spontaneity of the workers. His apprehension was that the working class, without guidance and leadership, cannot act and lead a revolution.
The workers will spontaneously participate in all the revolutionary movements and activities. Their participation may not always find grand success. But, according to Luxemburg, participation is important. They will make mistakes and through these mistakes they will, once, find out the correct way.
Let us quote her – “Historically, the errors committed by a truly revolutionary movement are infinitely more fruitful than the infallibility of the cleverest central committee” (Luxemburg).
By announcing this Luxemburg makes her position visa-a-vis Lenin clear. Revolutionary masses will decide everything and through struggle they will get the right lesson. To her, party meant a self-organizing proletariat. It is not an organisation managed and directed by professional revolutionaries and few leaders.
What Rosa thought about Marx’s view regarding consciousness, spontaneity etc. can best be stated in the words of Kolakowski:
“Marxism was not merely a theory of the historical process but an articulation of the consciousness, latent though it might be as yet, of an actual workers’ movement. When that consciousness took shape, i.e., when the spontaneous movement achieved theoretical self-knowledge, the distinction between theory and practice would cease to exist: the theory would become a material force, not in the sense of being a weapon in the struggle, but as an organic part of it”.
The clear difference between Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg on the vexed question of party leadership and spontaneity is that Lenin always treated party in the role of manipulator and director. But Rosa challenged this view and made clear her position by announcing that the simple role of the party is to explain the true objectives of the workers.
Luxemburg said that workers’ movement should not be manipulated by the self-styled leaders of the party. But when she found that the Bolshevik party under the leadership of Lenin was just doing this she vehemently opposed it and reminded the spontaneity and consciousness of the workers.
To sum up, while Luxemburg regarded spontaneity and consciousness as vital elements of revolution Lenin did not. Rosa Luxemburg strongly opposed Lenin’s theory of party leadership.
Rosa’s belief was that according to Lenin party is like a night watchman. The party’s function is to watch, guide and direct the proletariat in their struggle against the bourgeoisie. Let us quote Rosa again.
She said: “The ultra-centralism asked by Lenin is full of sterile spirit of the over-seer. It is not a positive and creative spirit”.
She thought that if Lenin’s method is followed that would enslave the young revolutionaries to few intellectual elites who are hungry for power.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
These intellectuals will again manipulate the party and its several organizations and they will finally the central committee of the party. She had firm faith on the organizational and other capacities of the workers.
Rosa said that if political situation permits the party can seize power and in that case only a small section of population will support revolution. But after that it would be the duty of the party to convince the population of the real objective of the party, that is, what the party intends to do. After capturing power the party cannot unleash terrorism.
The party must follow all sorts of democratic norms and policies and must adopt representative tactics. Rosa had a belief that the democratic principles and institutions are not always perfect. But that cannot be a ground of abolishing them.
In her The Russian Revolution Rosa said,“Freedom only for supporters of the government, only for members of a single party, however numerous, this is not freedom. Freedom must always be for those who think differently”.
“Socialism was a live historical movement and could not be replaced by administrative decrees”.