Rosa Luxemburg, the legacy of classical German philosophy and the fundamental methodological questions of social and political

theory1
Doan Gmen For Narihiko ITO sensei in friendship and deep respect In the preparation of the 15th International Rosa L !em" r# $onference of %&&' in Tok(o I feel no) that there "e#ins a ne) epoch in Rosa L !em" r# research* This means to s Rosa L !em" r# researchers that )e are "o nd+ )ith o r Rosa L !em" r# research+ to o,ercome #lo"alised capitalism and imperialism* Narihiko ITO In this dialectical+ as is taken here+ and here)ith in the #raspin# of opposition in its nit( or of the positi,e in the ne#ati,e consists the -pec lati,e* It is the most important side+ " t for tho #ht po)er still not trained+ not free+ the most diffic lt one* G. W. F. Hegel

Introductory Remarks Luxemburg is one of the most interesting social and political theorists and acti ists in the !arxist mo ement of the "#th and $%th centuries in particular and one of the most important political theorists and acti ist in general. Her name is er& popular. 'he personall& en(o&s great s&mpath& among almost all left)ing parties and groups and e en among arious schools of bourgeois academics. *urious it is+ her intellectual and political )ork occupies ho)e er hardl& the place in research and debates+ )hich she deser es. , en among left)ing political mo ements broadl& speaking her name is often reduced to not more that a mere popular s&mbolism. In the "#-%s and "#.%s Luxemburg/s )ork en(o&ed great attention. 0ut it )as a er& contro ersial reception and the contro ers& ma& be traced back to her famous phrase1 2the freedom is al)a&s the freedom of the other thinking differentl&3$. It is to be found in Luxemburg/s marginal notes to her posthumousl& published paper on 4ussian socialist re olution from October "#"-. This phrase )as mostl& used against Lenin and 0olshe ism in general+ and in the climax of cold )ar it )as utilised against 'o iet 5nion. 0ut I think that this phrase )as also used in man& )a&s against Luxemburg/s o)n fundamental thoughts. 'he )as ho)e er attacked b& arious leading members of international socialist and communist
"

This paper dra)s on m& paper addressed to the "6 th International 4osa Luxemburg *onference in Tok&o in 7pril "8$+ $%%-. I understand it as a contribution to methodological 9uestions raised b& Ist :n !;s<:ros/ lucid and insightful paper1 . /e( 0ro"lem of 1ethod2 D alism and Dichotomies in 0hilosoph( and -ocial Theor( in $apital 3poch in1 $riti4 e2 5o rnal of -ocialist Theor(+ no =>+ pp. $-8--. I thank International 4osa Luxemburg 'ociet& er& much for gi ing me the opportunit& to deli er this paper. I o)e also man& special thanks to ?rofessor Narihiko Ito sensei for his generous support+ )ithout )hich I could hardl& appear at the conference. $ Luxemburg+ 4.+ 6 r r ssischen Re,ol tion+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. >+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "##%+ p. =6# n=. B7ll translations used belo) are mine.C

"

mo ements. 7t the end in one )a& or another she )as presented to the readership often as a champion of liberal representati e democrac&+ so that Georg FDlberth seems to ha e felt it necessar&+ e en in a er& short paper+ to emphasise that her criti9ue of 4ussian socialist re olution )as not formulated from a liberal parliamentar& point of ie) but from a re olutionar& socialist point of ie).= In that respect she shares almost the same destin& as 7ntonio Gramsci )ith his often misinterpreted conception of 2ci il societ&3. 0ut neither Luxemburg nor Gramsci )ere liberals or social democrats in toda&/s sense. Luxemburg )as one of the founders of *ommunist ?art& of German& BE?@C and Gramsci )as chair of the *ommunist ?art& of Ital& B?*IC. *onfronted )ith this contradictor& and fragmentar& picture of Luxemburg/s intellectual and political )ork I tr& since "#.%s to understand the causeBsC of this paradox. 'oon I came to the conclusion that this paradox ma& be sol ed if her )ork is taken as a )hole and this re9uires going back to the philosophical and methodological foundations of Luxemburg/s )ork. Luxemburg de elops her social and political theor&+ on the one hand+ in criticism of her contemporar& bourgeois philosophers and social and political thinkers like Neokantians+ and+ on the other hand+ in debates )ith arious theoreticians of social democrat mo ement at that time. In her criticism of her contemporar& bourgeois thinkers Luxemburg sees her task in nothing less than in defending the scientific and philosophical achie ements of re olutionar& bourgeoisie. In her debates )ith arious social democrat theoreticians she )ants to defend and further de elop !arxian theor&. In this context she reformulates the fundamental methodological 9uestions of social and political theor& and endea ours to gi e ans)ers from her !arxian point of ie). Luxemburg sees in re olutionar& bourgeois philosoph& and social and political thought t)o highpoints or culmination points. These are+ first+ 'mithian84icardoean political econom& and+ second+ Hegelian philosoph&. In her post8re olutionar& epoch after the French 4e olution from "-.# and at latest after ".>. re olution in ,urope bourgeoisie aims to destro& her o)n historical scientific+ philosophical and cultural achie ements. In her paper 6 r8ck a f .dam -mith B20ack to 7dam 'mith3C from ".##F"#%% she obser es that as re olutionar& social class bourgeoisie allo)ed and promoted 2that impartialit& in research+ that ruthlessness )ith regard to conse9uences+ that bold flapping of )ings to GaH height GIH from )here she GbourgeoisieH grasped )ith GanH ingenious look the inner connections of the mode of bourgeois production.3> 0ut+ Luxemburg continues+ in her post8re olutionar& epoch+ that is+ after bourgeoisie sei<ed the political po)er+ bourgeois philosophers and social and political thinkers ga e up their scientific and turned their look a)a& from the research of general la)s.6 In this connection she points to t)o tendencies among bourgeois social and political thinkers. The first group+ )hich she subsumes under the heading of ulgar economists+ is merel& interested in the (ustification of isolated indi idual appearances. The second group gi es up the research of the foundation of econom& and declares that the task of science is the mere description of )hat ha e alread& become and indi iduals beings. What these t)o groups ha e in common is that the& are not
=

FDlberth+ G.+ L !em" r#+ Rosa+ in 1et9ler 0hilosophen Le!ion+ J. 0. !et<lersche Aerlagsbuchhandlung+ 'tuttgart+ "#.#+ p. >.>. > Luxemburg+ 4.+ 6 r8ck a f .dam -mith+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. "F"+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "##%+ p. -=>. 6 'ince !arx sho)ed to the ad antage of historical standpoint of )orking class in the fields of philosoph&+ histor& and econom&+ to bourgeois research the thread in these fields is cut off. The natural philosoph& in its classical sense is o er. 0ourgeois philosoph& of histor& is o er. 'cientific political econom& is o er. In the research of histor& shining in all colours+ that is+ the renunciation of the unitar& explanation of the processes of histor&+ has replaced e er& unitar& theor& unless there pre ails unconscious and inconsistent materialism. ,conom& )a ers bet)een t)o schools+ that of Khistorical/ and that of Ksub(ecti e/+ from )hich the one is a protest against the other+ both are a protest against !arx+ in doing so the one negates principall&+ to negate !arx+ economic theor&+ that is+ the recognition G,rkenntnisH in this field+ but the other negates the onl& L ob(ecti e L research method+ )hich first raised political econom& to science.3 BLuxemburg+ 4.+ /arl 1ar!+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. "F$+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "#..+ pp. =-68=-M.C

interested in the scientific explanation of the inner relations of seemingl& isolated appearances. Fe) pages further do)n she asserts+ because of this 2toda& the slogan of bourgeois social sciences seems to be back. 0ack to Eant in philosoph&+ back to 7dam 'mith in econom&N 7 desperate fall back on alread& o ercome positions+ )hich is a definiti e sign of hopelessness+ into )hich bourgeoisie ideall& and sociall& alread& got. 0ut there is no )a& back as )ell as in science and in the real de elopment of societ&.3M If )e look at this passages from her paper 6 r8ck a f .dam -mith carefull&+ &ou )ill recognise that she formulates here some of her fundamental methodological+ philosoph& and science historical principles and con ictions. First+ methodologicall&+ she refers to impartialit& as a fundamental scientific method. This methodological principle is accompanied b& the science ethical principle of honest&. 'econd+ she points to generalising method as an indispensable precondition for a scientific ie) of the issues )e deal )ith. Third+ she highlights that scientists ha e to )ork out the nature or inner connections of appearances being obser ed. Fourth+ she points out that historical approach to societ&+ philosoph&+ science+ and social and political thought is absolutel& necessar& to ha e a scientific outlook. Fifth+ )hat is implicit in all that is her deep con iction that from no) on a scientific outlook can onl& be obtained from the point of ie) of )orking classes. No)+ these are some of the most important methodological principles Luxemburg refers to permanentl& as the foundation of her )ork. 0ut unfortunatel& exactl& these methodological considerations of 4osa Luxemburg ha e been neglected and this is+ I think+ )as and is the cause of fragmentar& and distorted reception of Luxemburg/s )ork in the last fe) decades. 'urel& Luxemburg did not produce a )ork that )e can identif& as her philosophical )ork in the specific sense of the term. 'he has also not left behind 2philosophical note books3 or 2conspectus3 to arious philosophers like Lenin. Oet she )as interested in philosophical and methodological 9uestions more than )e ma& expect. , en philosophical debates that )ere of interest onl& to philosophers b& profession could not escape her look )hich )as directed to)ards grasping the totalit& )ith all its complexities+ inner relations and contradictions.- 'he )as in ol ed in these methodological debates )ith man& papers from a Hegelian8!arxian point of ie).. Her )ork offers therefore a li el& mirror of the debates to)ards the end of the "#th
M -

Ibid.+ -=M. *ompare P7ntikritik2+ )here she reports about a rather sophisticated debate on Eant/s P?rolegomena2. BLuxemburg+ 4.+ Die .kk m lation des /apitals oder 7as die 3pi#onen a s der 1ar!schen Theorie #emacht ha"en2 3ine .ntikritiks in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. 6+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "##%+ p. >=6C. . To prepare her fundamental criti9ue of Neokantians Luxemburg seems to ha e studied Eant and Hegel from primar& and secondar& literature. To her secondar& sources )e ma& count ?lekhano /s+ !ehring/s and Lenin/s )orks. With regard to primar& sources in Luxemburg/s )ork there are references to Eant/s $riti4 e of 0 re Reason and to Hegel/s -cience of Lo#ic. To Luxemburg/s reception of Hegelian philosoph& I )ill come further do)n. Let us first refer to those passages from her correspondence+ )here she explicitl& sa&s that she is stud&ing and debating on Eant. In her letter Leo Jogiches from Jul& "%+ ".#. she refers to her correspondence )ith 0runo 'choenlank )ho )as the editor in chief of the 2Leip<iger Aolks<eitung3 bet)een ".#> and "#%" and )ho seems to ha e called Luxemburg/s book -o9ialreform or Re,ol tion a 2!aster piece of @ialectic3. BLetter to Leo Jogiches from 'eptember $>+ ".#.+ Gesammelte :riefe+ ol. "+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "#.$+ p. $%>.C The sub(ect of this correspondence seems to ha e been Eantian philosoph&. BLetter to Leo Jogiches from Jul& "%+ ".#.+ in ibid.+ pp. "-%8"-".C Just fe) da&s later BJul& "$8$%C she )rites to Lagiches that she borro)ed some books from librar&. 7mong others she mentions Eant/s $riti4 e of 0 re Reason. BLetter to Leo Jogiches from Jul& "$8$%+ ".#.+ in Gesammelte :riefe+ ol. "+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "#.$+ p. "-=.C On 7ugust =+ ".#.+ approximatel& = )eeks later she )rites again and sa&s that she is still debating )ith 'choenlank on Eant. BLetter to Leo Jogiches from 7ugust =+ ".#.+ in ibid.+ p. "-#.C There are t)o other letters to Eost(a Qetkin+ in )hich she debates about Eant/s aesthetic. In these letters she re(ects to go into Eantian aesthetic+ because she does not kno) much about it and she does not ha e time to stud& it. B*ompare the letters to Eost(a Qetkin from 7pril $$+ "#%- and 7ugust ".+ "#%.+ in ibid.+ ol. $+ p. $.- and p. =-6.C 0ut )e kno) from her paper Tolstoi als so9ialer Denker B2Tolsto& as 'ocial Thinker3C that she regards Tolsto&/s aesthetic much higher in rank than that of Eant. B*ompare Luxemburg+ 4.+ Tolstoi als so9ialer Denker+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. $+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "##%+ p. $6".C

centur& and at the beginning of the $%th centur& on methodological and science theoretical 9uestions. This is also the reason+ as I think+ that makes her )ork an indispensable source of these debates and for grasping her position in these debates. In addition+ I think it )ould not be correct to look for Kpure/ philosophical )orks to 9ualif& !arxist theoreticians like Luxemburg as philosophers+ because the& are not onl& interested in de eloping pure philosophical )orks but also in putting philosoph& into practice. In short+ I mean that there is a fundamental philosophical con iction behind the )hole )ork of Luxemburg/s )e ha e to take into account if )e )ant to consider her )ork as )hole. Her debates )ere directed abo e all against Eantian and Neokantian philosophers in social democrac& mo ement. In these debates she defends the achie ements of Hegelian philosoph& and !arx/s theor&. The cutting eapons of !egelian dialectic" If one looks at the index of Luxemburg/s $ollected 7orks published b& @iet< Aerlag 0erlin for Hegel ma& think that there are onl& fe) references. This ma& gi e the impression as if Luxemburg as social and political theorist )as not concerned much about methodological and philosophical 9uestions. Ho)e er+ she )as interested in methodological more than an& other theoretician of German social democrac&. Her references to Hegel/s philosoph& for example concern the heart of Hegelian philosoph&. The& all refer to Hegel/s conception of contradiction )hich in ol es his conceptions of motion+ change and de elopment. I mean the& point to those elements of Hegelian philosoph&+ )hich !arx called the 2rational kernel3# of Hegelian philosoph& in the 27fter)ord3 to the second German edition of $apital. ?robabl& bearing in mind the )idespread cultural decline theories in German& at that time+ Luxemburg points out in .cc m lation of $apital that the great philosopher Hegel said that contradiction is the mo ing force that dri es further."% 7ccording to Hegel the contradiction is the ground of motion and this ground is immanent in things. In other )ords+ as opposed to 7ristotle+ for example+ Hegel regards the source of motion immanent grounded in things as )ell as in relationships. If )e search for the sources of change+ according to Hegel+ )e ha e to anal&se the nature and relations of appearances before us instead looking for some m&sterious forces in the Kkingdom of hea en/ as 7ristotelian conception of 2unmo ed mo er3 ma& impl&. It is this conception of motion b& means of )hich Hegel )anted to introduce d&namism in to the fixed mode of thought of Keither8or/ dualism in ,uropean philosoph&. One ma& criticise the form of s&stem Hegel offers but one has also to bear in mind that he defines right from the beginning of his -cience of Lo#ic permanent motion as absolute L permanent motion including (umps in nature+ societ& and in culture. The dri e+ that is+ the motion+ sa&s Hegel+ is 2a negati e )hich entails a positi e direction.3"" 7s &ou see Hegel defines here the most important concept of dialectical philosoph&. It means that things ha e to be considered as unities of positi es and negati es+ that is+ as unities of opposites. In other )ords+ things ha e to be considered as unities of identit& and non8identit& and in relation to one another. 7ccording to Hegel this is the truth of things+ )hich expresses itself also in their concepts and it )as this recognition B2,rkenntnis3C that allo)ed philosoph& to make a step for)ard."$

!arx+ E.+ Das /apital2 /ritik der politischen ;konomie+ ol. "+ in 1ar! 3n#els 7erke+ ol. $=+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "#..+ p. $-. "% *ompare Luxemburg+ 4.+ Die .kk m lation des /apitals2 3in :eitra# 9 r konomischen 3rkl<r n# des Imperialism s in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. 6+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "##%+ p. -"# and Die .kk m lation des /apitals oder 7as die 3pi#onen a s der 1ar!schen Theorie #emacht ha"en2 3ine .ntikritiks in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. 6+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "##%+ p. >6". "" Hegel+ G. W. F.+ 7issenschaft der Lo#ik+ ol. $+ in 7erke+ ol. M+ eds. !oldenhauer+ ,. und !ichel+ E. !.+ 'uhrkamp+ FrankfurtF!+ "##=+ p. -=. "$ Ibid.

>

Ho)e er+ Hegel sa&s+ 2GiHt is one of the fundamental pre(udges of logic and )idespread imagination hitherto as if contradiction )as not an essential and immanent determination like identit&. Oes+ if one speaks of hierarch& and if both determinations )ould allo) considering them separatel&+ then one has to take contradiction as deeper and more essential determination+ because identit& compared to contradiction is the determination of the simple immediate+ of the dead identit&+ but contradiction is the source of all motion and li elihoodR onl& if insofar something entails contradiction it mo es+ has dri e and action.3"= It is this conception of contradiction that Luxemburg called the 2cutting )eapon of Hegelian dialectic3."> The bourgeois call for back to #ant in philosophy"$ Historical approach and perspecti e as method of research and presentation is for Luxemburg an indispensable prere9uisite+ )hich must be met if the ob(ect of research should be grasped appropriatel& as man& sided as possible+ if its nature+ internal and external relations+ its becoming and passing a)a& should be explained and criticall& presented. Luxemburg stated this idea explicitl& in her paper /arl 1ar! from "#%=. To the 9uestion K)hat is the !arxian theor&S/ she replies1 it is 2in its most general outline the historical recognition of the historical )a& )hich leads from the last antagonistic+ that is+ on class contradictions based form of societ& to communist societ& )hich is built on the principle of solidarit& of the interests of all its members.3 'he continues1 in !arxian theor& the 2historical research method makes up the perpetual part.3"6 This historical approach applies also to philosoph& and philosoph& implies necessaril& histor& of philosoph&. It reflects in its de elopment and in the de elopment of its categories the histor& of societ&. In other )ords+ according to Luxemburg philosophical combats mirror also class struggles. These struggles are also often expressed in slogans. The bourgeois slogan 2back to Eant in philosoph&3 comes from Neo8Eantian philosophers"M man& of )hom )ere also members of 'ocial @emocrat ?art& of German& and attacks abo e all Hegelian conception of contradiction+ )hich )orks further in !arxian theor& of re olution. Luxemburg shares )ith man& other !arxist theoreticians like ?lekhano + !ehring and Lenin the ie) that this is an indirect attack on !arxism. In her uni9ue paper =ohle N8>e B2,mpt& Nuts3C Ba good documentation of the histor& of the reception of !arxian theor& in GermanC she sa&s1 2'ince from Hegel philosophical roads lead (ust una oidabl& to the most dangerous robber ca es of Feuerbach and !arx there remained to the bourgeois philosophers nothing but annul Hegel from the histor& of philosoph& simpl& b& a command and let science (ump back Kto Eant/ b& a magic gesture.3"Hegel defines his philosoph&+ on the one hand+ in relation to Eantian philosoph& and+ on the other hand+ in relation to traditional metaph&sics )hich still thinks in fixed either8or dichotomies. 7lread& in the preface to the first edition of his -cience of Lo#ic Hegel accuses Eant of empiricism because Eant+ according to Hegel+ )ants to destro& metaph&sics as such. This is to sa& that Hegel )ants to rescue metaph&sics despite of all his criticism and integrate it
"= ">

Ibid+ p. -6. Luxemburg+ 4.+ . s dem Nachla> nserer 1eister+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. "F$+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "#..+ p. "=-. "6 Luxemburg+ 4.+ /arl 1ar!+ in ibid.+ p. =--. "M *ompare Lehrke+ W.+ Neokantianism s+ in 3 rop<ische 3n9(klop<die 9 0hilosophie nd 7issenschaften+ ed. 'andkDhler+ H.8J.+ Hamburg1 Felix !einer Aerlag+ Hamburg+ "##%+ pp.6>#86M"R 'andkDhler+ H.8J. Bed.C+ 1ar!ism s nd 3thik+ FrankfurtF!+ "#->. "Luxemburg+ 4.+ =ohle N8>e+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. "F"+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "##%+ p. >#%.

into his dialectical philosoph&.". This difference bet)een Eant and Hegel has important implications for their approach to epistemological issues. In his $riti4 e of 0 re Reason Eant declares that the thing in itself or nature of things is not recognisable."# ,pistemologicall& speaking Eant falls at latest at this stage into absolute relati ism and turns kno)ledge claims into an sub(ecti ist Barbitrar&C issue. This leads him to the phenomenological statement that dialectics is a 2Logic of 7ppearance3$%. This binds Eant to the fact that he remains in his epistemological concerns on the surface of the ob(ects to be recognised. Hegelian philosoph&+ on the contrar&+ aims at recognising the nature of things+ )hich )ants to take into account also the particularit& of things. 7ccording to Hegel things must be recognised )ith regard to their nature+ internal and external relations+ )ith regard to their becoming and passing a)a&. He )ants thereb& to grasp things as a unit& of identit& and non8identit&. ,pistemologicall& Luxemburg defines herself more or less explicitl& in this tradition of Hegel and of course of !arx )hen she states for example in her paper Noch eine Lehre ,on 6a"ern B27nother Lesson from Qabern3C1 2GiHt )as al)a&s the pride of our part& 8 a real child of !arxian sprit 8 that she did not stick to the surface of appearances but in her )ork of enlightenment she reached into the deepest roots of social relations.3$" Luxemburg criticise here explicitl& mere phenomenological approaches and suggests that to explain appearances in their entiret& our epistemological Klook/ must penetrate into their nature and )e ha e to explain the issues concerned b& bringing to the fore their internal and external relations. 0ourgeois science as opposed to !arx and Luxemburg )ants to o ercome Hegelian dialectic b& an imaginar& Ksalto mortale/ and go back to Eant. It must therefore fight against an& philosoph& that claims that things can be recognised in their entiret&. It ends up as a conse9uence in the case of ,duard 0ernstein+ for example+ in the dualistic s)ing of thought of Keither8or/ and other fixed dichotomies+ because he sa&s 2 alet to dialectics3.$$ In the case of sub(ecti ist theor& of political econom& it creates nothing but chaos+ )ithout a s&stem+ sprit and brain.$= This leads conse9uentl& to the miserable situation )here 2research 8 like a ostrich bird )ith its head in sand L buries itself in bet)een small fragments of appearances in order not to see more general relations and to )ork merel& for the needs of e er&da& life.3$> In this )a& the bourgeois science declares the 2timidit& of empirical feeling to the onl& principle of the research method3$6 and undertakes an 2industrious atomising )ork3. This approach creates a picture of social life that lets appear social relations like in a mirror that is broken to thousands of pieces. In her paper Im Rate der Gelehrten B27t the *ouncil of Intellectuals3C+ in )hich she attacks Werner 'ombart/s misuse of !arxian theor&+ she sa&s1 2this atomising )ork3 is for bourgeois scientists 2the safest )a& to dissol e theoreticall& all general social connections and to let disappear Kscientificall&/ capitalist forest behind man& trees.3$M Ho)e er+ to do this+ bourgeois scientists ha e to get rid of the Hegelian Kburden/. 0ut according to Luxemburg this is as ain as tr&ing to stop time and progress of histor&+ because generall& speaking in science as )ell as in the de elopment of societ& there is no )a& back. 7s
".

Hegel+ G. W. F.+ 7issenschaft der Lo#ik+ ol. "+ in Werke 6+ eds. !oldenhauer+ ,. and !ichel+ E. !.+ FrankfurtF!1 'uhrkamp+ "##=+ p. "=. "# *ompare Eant+ I.+ /ritik der reinen ?ern nft+ ed. Timmermann+ J.+ Hamburg1 Felix !einer Aerlag+ "##.+ pp. ==-8=-$% *ompare for example+ ibid+ p. >%6. $" Luxemburg+ 4.+ Noch eine Lehre ,on 6a"ern+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. =+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin "##%+ p. =.M. $$ Luxemburg+ 4.+ -o9ialreform oder Re,ol tion+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. "F"+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "##%+ p. >=#C $= Luxemburg+ 4.+ 6 r8ck a f .dam -mith+ in ibid.+ p. -=M. $> Luxemburg+ 4.+ /arl 1ar!+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. "F$+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "#..+ p. =-M $6 Luxemburg+ 4.+ . s dem Nachla> nserer 1eister+ in ibid.+ p. $#6. $M Luxemburg+ 4.+ Im Rate der Gelehrten+ in ibid.+ p. =...

I ha e alread& pointed out she thinks that the de elopment and progress neither in societ& nor in science can be stopped.$7gainst bourgeois epistemological scepticism and agnosticism and in all colours shining eclecticism and po ert& of theor&+ Luxemburg puts for)ard the concept of contradiction and epistemological optimism that includes scientificall& founded and examining critical theor& of kno)ledge. The claim that )e cannot gi e up the concept of contradiction Luxemburg formulates in almost all her )ritings but more explicitl& in her book 3inf8hr n# in die Nationalkonomie B2Introduction to ?olitical ,conom&3C. ?robabl& bearing in mind )idespread cultural decline theories at that time in German&+ she sa&s1 2'ociet& as a )hole gets in ol ed permanentl& in contradictions. 0ut because of this it does not get destro&ed+ on the contrar&+ it gets exactl& then in motion )here it gets stuck in contradictions. *ontradiction in social life dissol es itself al)a&s in de elopment+ in ne) progress of culture. The great philosopher Hegel said1 Kthe contradiction is the force that mo es for)ard/. 7nd this motion in permanent contradictions is the real )a& of de elopment in human histor&.3$. In her paper 6 r8ck a f .dam -mith she concludes1 2The most inner nature of bourgeois mode of production+ its real m&ster& can onl& be explained if it is considered in its de elopment+ in its historical limits.3$# Ho)e er+ if Hegel is ignored in the histor& of philosoph& this )ould result in the destruction of the capabilit& and the possibilit& of cognition and recognition as such. If this is the case )e can explain neither histor& of societ& nor the de elopment of histor& of thought because the& de elop permanentl& in contradictions. If )e gi e up the concept of contradiction )e )ould stand before a big chaos. Therefore+ Luxemburg/s slogan against the bourgeois slogan 2back to Eant in philosoph&3 can onl& be further in philosoph& )ith Hegel on the )a& )hich alread& !arx opened up )ith his materialist theor& of dialectics.=% We must ho)e er not take that )hat Luxemburg sa&s here in its narro) sense. When Luxemburg sa&s further )ith Hegel in philosoph& on the )a& that has been opened up b& !arx she means b& that that achie ements of Eantian philosoph& as )ell as the )hole cultural achie ements of humanit& including that of bourgeoisie must be rescued+ because the call of bourgeois science for going back to Eant in philosoph& and to 'mith in political econom& is not (ust a call for their re i al. It rather means the destruction particularl& of those elements in their theor&+ )hich go be&ond their historical limits. This means for example the destruction of the fact that Eant recognised that there is thing in itself+ though it cannot be kno)n. Furthermore it )as Eantian )ho put the concept of contradiction )ith his antinomies on the agenda of modern philosoph&+ though he did not sol ed them. Neokantian turn in philosoph& )ants to destro& all these b& tr&ing to de elop a purel& sub(ecti ist8idealist philosoph&. 'ub(ecti ist turn in political econom& means the destruction of ob(ecti e theor& of alues and labour theor& of alue in 'mith/s and 4icardo/s political econom&. In her criti9ue of 0ernstein and other Neokantians Luxemburg illustrates ho) the& end up in a philosoph& of moral harmon& )hen the& gi e up Hegelian dialectic and in her criti9ue of Werner 'ombart and all sorts of sub(ecti ist schools in political econom& she sho)s ho) the& )ant to destro& the ob(ecti e theor& of alue and labour theor& of alues. Luxemburg states in her paper -tillstand nd Fortschritt im 1ar!ism s B2The 'tandstill and 7d ance in !arxism3C that she sees therefore the dut& of )orking classes and her dut& as an intellectual of these classes in the defence of the historical achie ements of

$$.

Luxemburg+ 4.+ 6 r8ck a f .dam -mith+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. "F"+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "##%+ p. -=M. Luxemburg+ 4.+ 3inf8hr n# in die Nationalkonomie+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. 6+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "##%+ p. -"#. $# Luxemburg+ 4.+ 6 r8ck a f .dam -mith+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. "F"+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "##%+ p. -=>. =% Ibid.+ p. -=M.

bourgeoisie1 2the culture of bourgeoisie must be defended against andalism of bourgeois reaction GIH to create those social conditions of free de elopment of culture3=". %arxian &hilosophy is the successor of !egelian 'ialectic I 9uoted abo e those )ritings of Luxemburg/s+ )hich are explicitl& de oted to defend and appl& !arxian philosoph& and theor& of science. This is (ustified b& the fact that Hegel formulated er& similar criti9ues of the dominating Eantian and all sorts of empirist philosophies of his time.=$ 7lmost all ideas )hich Hegel formulated in this context )ent in one )a& or another into !arxian philosoph&. 0earing this in mind+ Luxemburg/s criti9ue of bourgeois theor& of science and philosoph& reads at the same time as a defence of Hegelian and !arxian dialectic. The commonness of the fate of Hegelian and !arxian philosoph& is under German social democrat intellectuals b& no one better expressed than b& Luxemburg. 7fter ha ing read her science theoretical and philosophical )ritings one )ants almost to sa& that Hegelian and !arxian philosophies are going to be defeated altogether or the& are going to )in altogether. 0ut ho) should be this commonness in fate understoodS Luxemburg defines !arxian theor& as 2a child of bourgeois science+ but the birth of this child has cost the mother her life3.== Luxemburg/s highl& dialectical metaphorical use of the terms T 2mother3 2child3 and 2life3 is extremel& interesting and indicates in )hat sense the relationship bet)een classical bourgeois philosoph& and science and !arxian theor& should be taken+ namel& in the sense of Hegelian categories of negation B2Negation3C and abolition B27ufhebung3C. In the sense that !arxism negates bourgeois philosoph& and theor& of science but it rescues at the same time those historical achie ements that are essential for further de elopment of societ&+ science and philosoph&. !arxian philosoph& is a child of bourgeois philosoph& too. 0ut it is particularl& a child of Hegelian philosoph& as the highest form of bourgeois philosoph&. 4eferring to ,ngels/ pamphlet L d)i# Fe er"ach nd der . s#an# der klassischen de tschen 0hilosophie Luxemburg defines the aim of philosoph& to find an ans)er to the perpetual 9uestion of the relationship bet)een thought and being. ,ngels suggests that the 2great fundamental 9uestion of all+ especiall& that of modern philosoph& is about the relationship of thought and being.2@A Follo)ing ,ngels/ assertion Luxemburg defines 2the nature of philosoph& as the perpetual 9uestion of the relationship bet)een thought and being3+ that is+ the relationship of 2human consciousness in the ob(ecti e )orld.3=6 Luxemburg sees in the )a& ho) !arx replies to this 9uestion the most scientific ans)er that is possible and Hegel prepared the )a& for this. Hegel de elops his -cience of Lo#ic as a criticism of Eant/s s&stem. Hegel defines philosoph& as grasping its time in thought. ?hilosoph& originates in its time and brings an order into the seemingl& dispersed material. It does this b& recognising general la)s in seemingl& anarchic chaos.=M This is definitel& an implicit criti9ue of
="

Luxemburg+ 4.+ -tillstand nd Fortschritt im 1ar!ism s+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. "F$+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "#..+ p. =M-. =$ *ompare for example Hegel+ G. W. F.+ Differen9 des Fichteschen nd -chellin#schen -(stems der 0hilosophie+ in 7erke+ ol. $+ eds. !oldenhauer+ ,. and !ichel+ E. !.+ 'urhkamp+ FrankfurtF!+ "#.M+ in particular pp. =%8>= and 7er denkt a"straktB+ in ibid.+ pp. 6-686.". == Luxemburg+ 4.+ /arl 1ar!+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. "F$+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "#..+ p.=-M. => ,ngels+ F.+ L d)i# Fe er"ach nd der . s#an# der klassischen de tschen 0hilosophie+ in 1ar!C3n#elsC7erke+ ol. $"+ @iet< Aerlag 0erlin+ "#.>+ p. $->. =6 Luxemburg+ 4.+ /arl 1ar!+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. "F$+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "#..+ p. =-%. =M It is interesting enough that Luxemburg sees in !arx/s criti9ue of political econom& a similar goal and methodolog& at )ork1 2GaHs e er&bod& kno)s it )as !arx )ho sho)ed that anarch& is the la) of the mode of capitalist production. Ho)e er+ !arx disco ered also )ithin this anarch& the specific la)s )hich pre ail against

Eantian philosoph&. Hegel defines here thought as mirror of its time. He is er& explicit on this in the 2Introduction3 to his abo e8mentioned )ork. There he criticises all concepts of logic 8 but in particular the Eantian logic 8 because the& take the 2material of recognition essentiall& as a read& )orld outside thought and start from the principle that thought is empt&+ as a form being outside the matter and comes to matter from outside the matter+ fills itself )ith matter+ conse9uentl& gains a content and becomes b& this a real recognition.3=- If recognition is conceptualised in this )a&+ Hegel thinks that thought cannot go be&ond itself+ it )ill remain in itself. Its modifications )ould remain as modifications of itself+ it )ould not get in ol ed )ith its other+ self8conscious determination )ould belong onl& to thought. In short+ if )e conceptualise thought as described abo e+ that is+ in the )a& of Eantian transcendental philosoph& thought )ould remain )ithin itself+ )ithout being able to go to its ob(ects. The ob(ect of thought remains as a thing in8itself be&ond thought.=. We can hardl& miss here Hegel/s criti9ue of Eant/s philosoph&. Hegel aims therefore to replace -cience of Lo#ic for Eant/s $riti4 e of p re Reason+ b& means of )hich he )ants to sho) ho) logic can go be&ond itself and appropriate its ob(ect. That )as also the aim of Eantian transcendental philosoph&. 0ut Hegel thinks that Eant failed to meet his goal because of his dualistic approach. 7ccording to Luxemburg/s interpretation+ !arx sees the same failure in Hegelian logic+ )hich Hegel sees in Eantian transcendental philosoph&. 7ccording to Luxemburg+ !arx comes to this conclusion+ on the one hand+ after ha ing studied Hegelian philosoph& thoroughl&+ and+ on the other hand+ after ha ing confronted his conclusions dra)n from his studies )ith 29uestions of time and disputes3 as Luxemburg used to put it. This differentiates according to Luxemburg !arx from other &oung Hegelians. 4ight from the beginning !arx seeks to ans)er the main 9uestion of philosoph& about the relationship bet)een being and consciousness. Luxemburg discusses this de elopment of !arx in one her three papers entitled . s dem Nachla> nserer 1eister. 'he describes ho) !arx+ deri ed b& an inner crisis or inner combats to sol e the main 9uestion of philosoph& and gi e an ans)er to the 9uestions of human emancipation+ starts his studies )ith the field of (urisprudence+ continues )ith the criti9ue of philosoph& and politics and finall& arri es at the criti9ue of political econom&. His criti9ue of political econom& is then the foundation B2Granitblock3C of his total criti9ue of capitalist social formation+ on )hich he builds his theor& of scientific socialism.=# The result of this de elopment of !arx/s is the famous re ersal of Hegelian s&stem. Luxemburg points to t)o ma(or debates )hich !arx )ent through to come to this result. The first debates concerns !arx/s criti9ue of arious Hegelian schools L in particular )ith &oung Hegelians. The second debate refers to his criti9ue of arious schools of socialism. 7s a result1 2The language in )hich the 9uestions of dispute are explored is alread& free from Hegelian mannerR it is no longer about Ksprit and mass/+ Kabsolute criti9ue and self8consciousness/+ but it is about protecti e dut& and free trade+ social reform and state socialism and similar prosaic 9uestions. Hegel is alread& turned from the head on the feet.3>% Luxemburg refers here of course to !arx/s famous phrase of the re ersal of the Hegelian s&stem in the 27fter)ord3 to the second German edition of the first olume of $apital. There !arx states1 KGiHn its m&stified form+ dialectic became the fashion in German&+ because it seemed to transfigure and glorif& the existing state of things. In its rational form it is a scandal
this anarch& and regulate the )hole of econom&.3 BLuxemburg+ 4.+ Im Rate der Gelehrten+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. "F$+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "#..+ p. =.>.C =Hegel+ G. W. F.+ 7issenschaft der Lo#ik+ ol. "+ in 7erke+ ol. 6+ eds. !oldenhauer+ ,. and !ichel+ E. !.+ FrankfurtF!1 'uhrkamp+ "##=+ p. =MF-. =. Ibid.+ p. =-. =# *ompare Luxemburg+ 4.+ . s dem Nachla> nserer 1eister+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. "F$+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "#..+ pp. "=%8">". >% Luxemburg+ 4.+ . s dem Nachla> nserer 1eister+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. "F$+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "#..+ p. $#=.

and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors+ because it includes in its comprehension and affirmati e recognition of the existing state of things+ at the same time also+ the recognition of the negation of that state+ of its ine itable breaking upR because it regards e er& historicall& de eloped social form as in fluid mo ement+ and therefore takes into account its transient nature no less than its momentar& existenceR because it lets nothing impose upon it+ and is in its essence critical and re olutionar&.3>" To turn Hegelian dialectic into a 2critical and re olutionar&3 )eapon it had to be turned right side up again.>$ Luxemburg sees in this re ersal of Hegelian s&stem b& !arx the scientific foundation for the search of human emancipation. In the last t)o and more decades the popular phrase+ K!arx is dead/ returned on the agenda. This phrase is almost as old as the histor& of !arxism. 0ut according to Luxemburg there is no surprise in this+ because to declare that !arxism is theoreticall& o ercome and that K!arx is dead/ is a life task of bourgeois intellectuals. Ho)e er+ sa&s Luxemburg+ 2it is the dead !arx )ho still thro)s to the combating proletariat of the )orld the most fruitful efforts and guiding thoughts+ and it is the dead !arx )ho+ as a li ing+ still )alks around under the lar ae of bourgeois social science )ith a ictorious smile.3>= Luxemburg is e en not prepared to accept the e en among social democrats )idespread claim that !arxism )as suffering from a crisis. 4ather+ she suggests that if there is an impression that !arxism )as suffering from a seeming crisis this is+ on the one hand+ due to the slo)ness of 2our mo ement3 to disco er and appropriate ne) aspects of !arxian theor&+ and+ on the other hand+ due to the premature state in the de elopment of !arxist and proletarian mo ement compared to !arxian theor&. 2Onl&3 + she sa&s+ 2to the extent as our mo ement enters more ad anced stages and poses ne) practical 9uestions+ it reaches into depot of !arxian theor& to )ork out ne) indi idual pieces of his theor& and to make use of them. If ho)e er our mo ement L as an& practical battle L can long do )ith the old guiding lines of thought+ though the& ha e lost their alidit&+ so this is due to the utmost slo) progress in the theoretical utilisation of !arxian theor&.3>> 'he continues in the next paragraph1 2GiHf )e feel therefore in our mo ement no) a theoretical standstill+ so it is not because !arxian theor&+ b& )hich )e are consumed+ )ere not capable of de elopment or because it had Kdied out/+ but+ on the contrar&+ because )e took from !arxian e9uipment chamber the most important )eapons of thought+ )hich )ere necessar& for the state of battle hitherto+ )ithout here)ith exhausting themR not because )e outstripped !arx in our practical battle+ but+ on the contrar&+ because )ith his scientific creation !arx outstripped s as practical battle part& beforeR not because !arx is no longer sufficient for our needs+ but because our needs are still not de eloped enough for the utilisation of !arxian thought.3>6 Therefore+ instead speculating about the crisis of !arxism Luxemburg suggests that !arxism )ill become practical the more proletarian mo ement impro es and becomes realised )ith the de elopment of socialism. !arxism+ in other )ords+ according to Luxemburg+ is the most
>" >$

!arx+ E.+ $apital2 . $riti4 e of 0olitical 3conom(+ ol "+ ?rogress ?ublishers+ !osco)+ "#6>+ p. $#. In her letter to Leo Jogiches from Januar& $6.8$M+ ".## Luxemburg )rites that she read in 4ussian (ournal 4ussko(e 0ogatst)o BNo M+ June ".#.+ and -+ Jul& ".#.C an article entitled 2!aterialism and dialectical logic3 b& N.G. B*h. J. 'hitlo)skiC. The main thesis of the article according to Luxemburg is that dialectics loses its foundation if it is put on the basis of materialism. N. G. claims in other )ords that dialectic is possible onl& on basis of idealism. No) Luxemburg thinks that the )hole argument of the author goes )rong+ though the article is brilliantl& )ritten. B*ompare Letter to Leo Jogiches from Januar& $68$M+ ".##+ in Gesammelte :riefe+ ol "+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "#.$+ p. $M%.C >= Luxemburg+ 4.+ . s dem literarischen Nachla> ,on /arl 1ar!+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. "F$+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "#..+ p. >M$. >> Luxemburg+ 4.+ -tillstand nd Fortschritt im 1ar!ism s+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. "F$+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "#..+ p. =M.. >6 Ibid.

"%

de eloped form of science and philosoph&. Hence follo)ing ,ngels/ distinction bet)een utopian and scientific socialism Luxemburg 9ualifies !arx/s criti9ue of capitalist social formation as scientific. Taken in its broad sense this means that according to Luxemburg social and political theor& is founded for the first time in human histor& on scientific basis. It gi es an ans)er to the 9uestion of )hat is the source of the de elopment in human histor&+ to the 9uestion of ho) changes take place in histor&. It sho)s ho) totalit& can be grasped+ explained and criticall& presented )ith all its complexities+ relations and contradictions. To do this all fields of social and political theor& ha e to be related to production relations and philosophicall& reflected to understand their interdependence and relati e independence. No)+ )ith the re ersal of the Hegelian s&stem 2the solution to the philosophical conflict bet)een thought and being+ bet)een material )orld and the process of thought3 ma& ha e been found.>M 0ut Luxemburg poses the 9uestion )hether )ith this re ersal the Hegelian s&stem is for all time o ercomeS No )a&s+ sa&s Luxemburg. On the contrar& to man& of her contemporar& !arxists )ho reduced !arxian theor& from a mechanical standpoint to pure economics Luxemburg suggests that a s&stematic !arxist philosoph& has to be de eloped. In political econom& !arx ma& ha e pro ided a more or less complete theor&. 0ut the most aluable part of his o erall theor&+ namel& his research method called materialist8dialectical theor& of histor&+ ho)e er+ needs to be s&stematised und further de eloped. It is not a fixed theor&. On the contrar& it is a li ing theor& of class struggles.>- To de elop !arxian theor& )e ha e to sharpen our thought permanentl& b& stud&ing Hegelian dialectic. What conclusions should )e dra) from this description of Luxemburg/s methodological and philosophical considerations for contemporar& debatesS I am going to point out three aspects )hich+ I think+ are in particular er& rele ant for contemporar& debates in social and political theor&. The& all concern Luxemburg/s approach to the relationship bet)een theor& and practice. First+ in her paper Theor( and 0ractice from "#%#F"#"% B2Theor& und ?raxis3C from methodological point of ie) Luxemburg accuses Earl Eautsk& of a formalist approach. 7ccording to this approach he gains his theor& not from the stud& and anal&sis of realit& but produces it from )ithin 2ad hoc3>.+ that is+ from his 2pure Kimagination/3># and becomes alienated to the realit&. 0ecause of this formalism Eautsk& ie)ed the )orld merel& from ,uropean point of ie) and this led to Luxemburg/s accusation that Eautsk& is a 2euro8centrist3 as Narihiko ITO pointed out.6% Luxemburg criticises here )hat philosophers call apriorism. Her criti9ue of formalism can be applied to contemporar& social contracts theories such as that of John 4a)ls and that of 4obert No<ick+ )ho produce their theories of (ustice from their 2li el& fantas&3 as Luxemburg )ould ha e put it.6" 'econd+ in her )ork -ocial Reform or Re,ol tionB from ".## B2'o<ialreform oder 4e olution3C Luxemburg accuses ,duard 0ernstein of substituting dialectics for a mechanical approach. This leads 0ernstein to a theor& of de elopment of societ& )ithout an& sub(ect. He adopts+ in other )ords+ in the best case an e olutionar& moral theor& of histor& rather than a theor& of histor& of class struggles. This kind of approach to histor& and politics is er& common among
>M

Luxemburg+ 4.+ . s dem Nachla> nserer 1eister+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. "F$+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "#..+ p. "=#. >Luxemburg+ 4.+ -tills9and nd Fortschritt im 1ar!ism s+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. "F$+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "#..+ p.=M>. >. Luxemburg+ 4.+ Die Theorie nd die 0ra!is+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. $+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "##%+ p. =.-. ># Ibid.+ p. >%-. 6% Ito+ N.+ /arl /a tsk( nd Rosa L !em" r#+ in 7e#)eiser 9 m Gedanken Rosa L !em" r#s BPGuide to the Thought of 4osa Luxemburg2C+ Jungetsusha+ Tok&o+ $%%-+ p. $$>. 6" Ibid.+ p. =.#. I ha e )orked out some these aspects of Luxemburg/s )ork in m& paper Rosa L !em" r#Ds $ritical Realism and the Fo ndation of the Theor( of International Relations BTurkishC+ in 0raksis+ Aol. ""+ pp. >#8.$.

""

contemporar& academics+ so for example in Habermasian theor& of communication. In socialist mo ements in ,urope it is contemporaril& one of the dominating approaches. 0ut according to Luxemburg there are not onl& 9uantitati e changes but also 9ualitati e changes or (umps in histor&. This can be learnt from Hegel as )ell as from ,ngels. In her paper 3rter n#en 8"er die Taktik B2,xplorations on Tactics3C Luxemburg recommends to Georg Gradnauer to read Hegel or at least ,ngels on the dialectic of 9uantit& and 9ualit&. 'he sa&s1 2GhHas comrade Kgr/ forgotten his Hegel+ so )e recommend to him to consult at least the splendid chapter on 9uantit& and 9ualit& from ,ngels/ K7nti8@Dhring/ to con ince himself that catastrophes do not present opposition to de elopment+ but are a moment+ a phase36$ of de elopment. Luxemburg/s criti9ue of moral theories of histor& and politics should not be mistaken. 'he is not claiming for a moral nihilism as ma& be claimed of Niet<sche/s teaching. 4ather+ she sa&s in her er& short but )onderful paper /lein"8#erliche oder proletarische 7eltpolitik B2?ett& bourgeois or ?roletarian )orld ?olitics3C1 2GmHoral outcr& against )orld politics pla&s in our protest mo ement of course a great role. 0ut it )ill become a political factor onl& if it is accompanied b& the nderstandin# of historical la)s of appearances+ if it is directed not against the external forms but against the nature Gof appearancesH+ not against the conse9uences but against the root Gof appearancesH+ in a )ord1 if it is a re olutionar& outcr& of mass )hich attacks like a storm capitalist social order.36= 'o )hat Luxemburg sa&s in her criti9ue of moral theories of politics is this1 in capitalist societ& moral appeals to the sense of (ustice and so on )ill not help much. If )e follo) her ad ice )e ha e to stud& and anal&se carefull& the contradiction of interests in ol ed in the relations of production and recognise forces )hich ha e an interest in essential changes of these relations of production. 7nd according to Luxemburg it is our indispensable dut& from historical materialist perspecti e to recognise and rel& on international proletariat as the onl& sub(ect of this re olutionar& change. 2In its entire magnitude and re olutionar& sprit the ne) )ork of !arx can also become onl& li el& in fighting proletariat.36> It is onl& international proletariat that is capable of o ercoming globalised capitalism and imperialism as Narihito Ito calls for. This re olutionar& change )ill also bring the perpetual peace among nations humanit& has been seeking for thousands of &ears. Let me finish m& talk b& 9uoting a passage from her paper 7as )ollen )irB B2What )e WantS3C1 the 2abolition of the total and the general domination of one nation o er others )ill first possible )ith the abolition of capitalism and the introduction of socialist order )hich is based on solidarit& of all humans and nations and not on combat and ine9ualit& bet)een them.366

6$

Luxemburg+ 4.+ 3rrter n#en 8"er die Taktik+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. "F"+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "##%+ p. $6#. BLuxemburg/s italicsC 6= Luxemburg+ 4.+ /lein"8#erliche oder proletarische 7eltpolitik+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. =+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "##%+ pp. =%F=". 6> Luxemburg+ 4.+ . s dem literarischen Nachla> ,on /arl 1ar!+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. "F$+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "#..+ p. >->. 66 Luxemburg+ 4.+ 7as )ollen )irB+ in Gesammelte 7erke+ ol. $+ @iet< Aerlag+ 0erlin+ "##%+ p. 66.

"$