In case you are a huge nerd, I made some lecture notes on Rosa Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution for a reading group I am doing with my students. They are very nerdy and opinionated but I dunno maybe some of yinz will care. www.liamkofibright.com/uploads/4/8/... - ThreadSky

lastpositivist.bsky.social • 1 day ago

In case you are a huge nerd, I made some lecture notes on Rosa Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution for a reading group I am doing with my students. They are very nerdy and opinionated but I dunno maybe some of yinz will care.

https://www.liamkofibright.com/uploads/4/8/9/8/48985425/opinionated_notes_on_reform_or_revolution_for_my_students.pdf

Comments

bronterre.bsky.social•1 day ago

“They are very nerdy and opinionated” - quite a rude way to describe your students.

clearspark.bsky.social•1 day ago

Omg thank you. I almost asked you yesterday where that passage was from but ended up finding it using your alt text to prepare to read it. So, this is really useful for me.

lastpositivist.bsky.social•1 day ago

cartesiandream.bsky.social•22 hours ago

This was a great read, though I wish you had worded your last paragraph differently. The idea that anti-moralism "lead to" Stalinist killings is dubious (too many similar, moralistic, killings) and it hurt when you contributed to the type of verbal abuse antirealists are often subject to.

cartesiandream.bsky.social•22 hours ago

I get that your last line was somewhat conciliatory, all I can say is that I did not feel conciliated, though that can be explained by me being an oversensitive rando, etc. I'm happy to explain my objections in more detail if needed. Thanks for your analysis of Luxembourg's discursive context.

lastpositivist.bsky.social•22 hours ago

Wait this is a random response and I will respond properly but I don't understand - the verbal abuse anti-realists are subject to? Wasn't I subjecting realists to verbal abuse in that bit?

cartesiandream.bsky.social•22 hours ago

That was bad wording on my end, sorry about that! I was using "antirealists" to refer to moral antirealists as a supercategory for antimoralists, not realists in the sense you were using.

lastpositivist.bsky.social•22 hours ago

Oh well *I* am a moral anti-realist, so if that is the category being abused then I am myself therein! But tbf I do hate myself so that is consistent with what you're saying.

cartesiandream.bsky.social•21 hours ago

Yeah I'm an oversensitive square (antimoralist subcategory) complaining to a self-hating rectangle (moral anti-realist supercategory), lol I think that clarifies my confusing term use, though I don't know if you think those categories fit together in that way.

mayachhabra.bsky.social•1 day ago

Interesting. When you say one section was "markedly absent of direct Bernstein quotes" and he was probably more subtle--is that in the same book, The Preconditions of Socialism, and did you read that too, or was she responding to another piece there?

mayachhabra.bsky.social•1 day ago

I've read the free translation of Bernstein's book, but it turns out to be much abridged...

His memoirs are surprisingly funny, though.

mayachhabra.bsky.social•1 day ago

The most inexplicable thing I remember from Bernstein (whom I otherwise find compelling) is his opinion on imperialism in contrast to his views on democracy, and it's interesting to see how much the debate here is more about the economic consequences of cartels.

lastpositivist.bsky.social•1 day ago

I'm sorry to say I have not read it, so I am only going on Luxemburg's characterisation plus what I have read from other sources wherein people summarise him and the debate.

mayachhabra.bsky.social•1 day ago

And I'm going her off your characterization of Luxemburg's response. There's an aspect in Luxemburg elsewhere too I think of using technical/"hard-nosed" economic arguments to argue positions that she seems to be already convinced of via a moral distaste for the opposing position.

mayachhabra.bsky.social•1 day ago

Like it's easier for her to argue on the grounds that she's convinced independent Poland would be economically unviable or that cartels don't lead to the results Bernstein claims. And contrasting that with the things she says about the people/positions she's arguing with in less formal contexts.

jomichell.bsky.social•21 hours ago

This is nicely done! This might be of interest re. your comment about following up on Luxemburg's theory of crisis. https://debt-issues.blog.rosalux.de/files/2012/10/LUXEMBURGFINANCE.pdf

lastpositivist.bsky.social•21 hours ago

Hey that's perfect thank you! Also if you say that then I presume what I say about plausible maybe causes of crashes isn't wildly implausible? I was very worried my read of what the literature says is plausible was just way off, since I am far outside my comfort zone there!

jomichell.bsky.social•21 hours ago

Yes I think that Luxemburg was on the right track when pointing to the potential for increased financial activity to lead to potential instability (as Jan says, she arguably anticipates Minsky). OTOH, there's plenty of scope for criticism of the specific mechanisms she describes as leading to crisis

lastpositivist.bsky.social•1 day ago

@leaypi.bsky.social @economeager.bsky.social tell me why I am stupid. @enzoreds.bsky.social pls dnt h8 me. Thank you to @nescio13.bsky.social and @olufemiotaiwo.bsky.social for reassuring me they were not completely stupid so I felt able to post publicly!

leaypi.bsky.social•1 day ago

Great post. (As an aside I also really agree with you on the irritating polemical style. It kept me off Marxism for more years than was appropriate 😬)

lastpositivist.bsky.social•1 day ago

Yay ty! I will now tell everyone that you endorse every single thing therein.

lastpositivist.bsky.social•1 day ago

Out of interest what allowed you to look past the polemical tone?

leaypi.bsky.social•1 day ago

Good question, I guess it was a slow journey away from too many things that were polite but morally objectionable :) Maybe that's why I landed on the Austro-Marxists who are (mostly) very polite in that Habsburg way. (But I have to say I also have a soft spot for Bernstein...)

lastpositivist.bsky.social•1 day ago

Maybe also of interest to @kevinzollman.com given our convo the other day.

kevinzollman.com•1 day ago

"You will never be at any risk of accidentally thinking she might be sympathetic to Bernstein" gave me a chuckle

kevinzollman.com•1 day ago

I'm genuinely curious about the argument for cartels that you detail on page 3. (Point 3ii.) The idea being that cartels can more efficiently use information that could a non-cartel capitalist economy. This is interesting because it's related to the communism/socialism calculation debate, right?

kevinzollman.com•1 day ago

Cartels can only use information more efficiently in the same conditions that a socialized industry could use information more efficiently. Within a cartel, you might well have all sorts of principal-agent problem just like in a government run industry. Is there a sense for why B thought this?

lastpositivist.bsky.social•1 day ago

I'd love to know more on this front; it's definitely related to the calculation debate. Afaict part of what's happening here is there was an era just before that debate broke out in earnest where lots of people essentially agreed that coordinated rational planning would outperform the market, but...

economeager.bsky.social•22 hours ago

I love that you think I’d be qualified to dispute this topic

lastpositivist.bsky.social•22 hours ago

I say a bunch of stuff about contributing factors to recessions isn't that a thing everyone has to learn about in undergrad econ?

economeager.bsky.social•22 hours ago

Yes it is. And grad school even! Since macro is in the core. I will read :)

economeager.bsky.social•22 hours ago

Wait rhat sounded sarcastic — I am seriously pleased

lastpositivist.bsky.social•22 hours ago

Oh lol yeah I thought you were being sarcastic!

economeager.bsky.social•21 hours ago

Well I didn’t realize how directly it would touch on Econ but in general I’m just pleased to share an internet discussion with u anytime

lastpositivist.bsky.social•21 hours ago

:)

Did I say stupid things about contributing factors to crashes?

ravenonthill.bsky.social•1 day ago

I've skimmed through it; I really wonder what a modern economist would think of the predictions made. Because both Luxembourg and Bernstein made concrete statements about how businesses would conduct themselves and I wonder how that actually compares with economic history.

lastpositivist.bsky.social•1 day ago

My sense is that Rosa gets a lot of the specifics right (her main economic contentions therein are basically that expanding access to credit and the formation of cartels will not end the boom-bust cycle, and it seems obvious she called that one correctly), however...

lastpositivist.bsky.social•1 day ago

... for Rosa all these specifics are meant to obviously entail that capitalism will collapse (Bernstein even seems to agree that *if* the boom-bust cycle continues *then* collapse is inevitable) and, you know, that very conspicuously has not happened.

mutual-a.bsky.social•1 day ago

do you know of any marxist scholars who've addressed the fact that just because there's a declining rate of profit that in no way entails it will truly hit a point of crisis in any reasonable timeframe (eg it might take 10^7 years)

quane130.bsky.social•17 hours ago

Not sure re: actually mathematically rigorous predictions, but Okishio's theorem, even if only partly true, entails boom cycles due to technology that will keep capitalism afloat forever. Roemer/Michael Roberts has talked about this. Also other thinkers https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/theres-a-long-term-decline-in-the-rate-of-profit-and-i-am-not-joking/

quane130.bsky.social•17 hours ago

Basically, there is some weird dialectics going on where some Marxian economists who believe in TRPF also simultaneously believe in Okishio's results, which results in a synthesis of ??????

ravenonthill.bsky.social•1 day ago

Isn't what stabilized the macroeconomy Keynesian policies? Which, arguably, are social democratic but seem only to have policy wonks for a constituency.

lastpositivist.bsky.social•1 day ago

Well one of the things for the global economy might have been Glass–Steagall, which Rosa seems to suggest may well be a way to delay things. But I think re Keynesianism that's hotly debated and tbh I'm nowhere near informed enough to have a useful opinion, sorry!

numbaoneparrothead.bsky.social•8 hours ago

📌

jmcintosh.bsky.social•22 hours ago

Pol. phil., never mind marxism and economic history aren't at all my fields, but really enjoyed this, thanks. Your students must be having a lot of fun doing this reading group with you.

lastpositivist.bsky.social•22 hours ago

That is very kind, thank you!

davidjorgonson.bsky.social•1 day ago

It's been a while since I read Reform or Revolution but I think this is good. The morality question is worth exploring I think - most Marxists say little about it but it is essential - why not become a paid shill or other betrayer of the workers, except ethics?

mayachhabra.bsky.social•18 hours ago

I think one can get there by arguing if capitalism was inevitably doomed, it doesn't pay long-term to be a shill for a regime on its way out, unless you somehow timed it to die rich just before the revolution. Essentially that such people would be selling out for only short term gain.

davidjorgonson.bsky.social•18 hours ago

In the long run, all of us are dead anyway. And revolutionaries are often the most gulag'd post-revolution.
Anyway, that's not the argument used by actually existing communists. They tend to make moral-sounding condemnations of "bloodthirsty ghouls" and "exploiters"

mayachhabra.bsky.social•17 hours ago

I was thinking of Luxemburg specifically, who was dead pretty early and didn't have to contemplate either the gulags (except insofar as finding out about the Cheka) or today's actually existing Communists. And who believed the collapse was imminent.

But yeah, shill and betrayer are moral terms.

davidjorgonson.bsky.social•17 hours ago

I don't think RL ever made the argument "join the revolutionary movement so you can be a self-benefiting apparatchik after", which would be the most realistic self-interest argument for becoming a revolutionary

mayachhabra.bsky.social•17 hours ago

At the time Reform or Revolution was written (1899), I doubt she anticipated self-benefiting post-revolution apparatchiks either! The very vocabulary didn't exist, if anything it seems she thought of many trade union officials like that.

There's an anticipated-success-worship in a lot of early>>

davidjorgonson.bsky.social•1 day ago

RL also writes that revolutionary goals can intertwine with reform efforts which is interesting in contrast to a lot of present day left accelerationists.

dankeevy.bsky.social•1 day ago

RL was dealt a cold hand by history, because she disagreed with Lenin, and he basically erased her from the movement since.

But the argument that a social revolution is needed has been born out in every decolonial struggle I can think of.

thaskleve.bsky.social•1 day ago

very fun read, pretty sure I've ever never ridden an emotional roller coaster while reading notes before

lastpositivist.bsky.social•1 day ago

Genuinely curious what the highs and lows were for you?

thaskleve.bsky.social•1 day ago

Mostly exaggerating, but the Idealism section was bit of a "But Liam, I sell drugs to the community?!" experience.

lastpositivist.bsky.social•1 day ago

😅🤣

heatherlyg.bsky.social•1 day ago

back in the day, my college prof suggested i read rosa luxemburg and it changed my life... you are doing good work for your students... thank you...

lastpositivist.bsky.social•1 day ago

❤️

rosvo1.bsky.social•1 day ago

On why social democracy survived in the Nordics, my feeling is that at least a part of it is due to the system of corporatism practiced here.

rosvo1.bsky.social•1 day ago

All labor agreements are sectoral, negotiated between the union for that industry and the employers for that industry There are also the big national income policy agreements negotiated between the labor unions, the employers and the government which touch on a wide range of work conditions.

lastpositivist.bsky.social•1 day ago

I do agree that's part of its longevity, but I am basically curious how they managed to get and protect that in the first place.

johanpries.bsky.social•1 day ago

I think Erik Bengtson sums up the historical debates on the why-question quite well when it comes to the Swedish case in this article, although I would add that there is a more contingent layer of nitty gritty cultural politics of hegemony to this as well: https://academic.oup.com/past/article/244/1/123/5498958

lastpositivist.bsky.social•1 day ago

Ty!

johanpries.bsky.social•1 day ago

No probs. Me and two others are just completing a book on the spatial aspects of Swedish Soc Dem hegemonic politics, so I don't want to downplay that element - but to some degree its (in EBs formula) simply just extreme wave of movement activity + extreme culture of unity => rapid social change.

rodrigoandres.bsky.social•18 hours ago

Post-WWII socialdemocracy was a theI right winf of Bernstein, who was not that far from Gramsci or Otto Bauer positions on hegemony, especially if one reads his very fascinating proposals on socialisation after WWI, with the diference that he threw the insurrectionalist rethoric altogether

rodrigoandres.bsky.social•18 hours ago

A lot of disechanted marxists turn to left keynesian o left weberian positions, I think Bernstein political attitude offers a more open emancipatory position that can sustain a radical reformism that doesn't look at himself as a form a resignation

pseudonymice.bsky.social•1 day ago

I love Hannah Arendt's profile of Rosa Luxemburg from "Men in Dark Times." It really helped me unpack why Steve Bannon has identified himself as a "Leninist" in his quest to destroy the state (she contrasts Lenin's vision with Luxemburg's).

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply