Greek Neo-Nazi Politician Assaults Two Female MPs On Live TV

[derspiess]

Marx, Lenin, Stalin, & Mao also had some cool, interesting quotes.  Doesn't mean I have to like them, either.

We can thank people like Rosa for giving the Freikorps a reason to exist.

[Sheilbh]

Did she write those excellent words about elections while she was leading the coup, or before?

She was leading an attempted revolution during a chaotic period.  There hadn't been elections and it wasn't a coup.

[citizen k]

Did she write those excellent words about elections while she was leading the coup, or before?

She was leading an attempted revolution during a chaotic period.  There hadn't been elections and it wasn't a coup.

It was a revolution against the ruling SPD. 

[Neil]

Did she write those excellent words about elections while she was leading the coup, or before?

She was leading an attempted revolution during a chaotic period.  There hadn't been elections and it wasn't a coup.

Because it failed.

[Malthus]

Marx, Lenin, Stalin, & Mao also had some cool, interesting quotes.  Doesn't mean I have to like them, either.

We can thank people like Rosa for giving the Freikorps a reason to exist.

Seems a bit ass-backwards in thinking, frankly, to blame the existence of the Freikorps on "people like Rosa".

Nor is it obvious that all communists are essentially fungible.

Neither her writings nor her actions, as far as I know, indicate that she was a ruthless dictator in the making. Quite the contrary.

[Ed Anger]

She would have gotten her period, then BAM! 100,000 dead.

[jimmy olsen]

Rosa was a Communist, but she had lots of admirable qualities for all that - at least, that's my sense. She was, for example, against Germany's participation in WW1, and accurately predicted that the Russian Revolution would descend into tyranny.

Here are two Rosa quotes:

Luxemburg's best-known quotation is: Freedom is always the freedom of the one who thinks differently (Freiheit ist immer Freiheit der Andersdenkenden), this is from a fuller quotation:
Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of a party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of the dissenter. Not because of the fanaticism of "justice", but rather because all that is instructive, wholesome, and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effects cease to work when "freedom" becomes a privilege.[21]


"Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element"

Can't say as I disagree with her on that.

With the hindsight of history we know that those beliefs are antithetical to a functional communist society though. How did she think her utopia would be attainable with out the bloodshed and tyranny of the Russian revolution?

[Malthus]

Rosa was a Communist, but she had lots of admirable qualities for all that - at least, that's my sense. She was, for example, against Germany's participation in WW1, and accurately predicted that the Russian Revolution would descend into tyranny.

Here are two Rosa quotes:

Luxemburg's best-known quotation is: Freedom is always the freedom of the one who thinks differently (Freiheit ist immer Freiheit der Andersdenkenden), this is from a fuller quotation:
Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of a party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of the dissenter. Not because of the fanaticism of "justice", but rather because all that is instructive, wholesome, and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effects cease to work when "freedom" becomes a privilege.[21]


"Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element"

Can't say as I disagree with her on that.

With the hindsight of history we know that those beliefs are antithetical to a functional communist society though. How did she think her utopia would be attainable with out the bloodshed and tyranny of the Russian revolution?

Well, perhaps if she knew in 1919 what we know now, she'd have described herself as a "socialist" and not as a "communist". Some who flirted with Communism later rejected it on the basis of the fact that those exemplifying it were basically evil dictators - think of Orwell. That was hardly obvious in 1919.

These terms have different meanings now then they did then. The split in the ranks of the German socialists at the end of WW1 had everything to do with contemporary events - the chaos and collapse of Germany, the varying degrees of opposition to the war, etc. - and less to do with ideological differences concerning Marxist utopianism. Remember that those who ended up in charge of Germany also described themselves as "socialists" and were, only a couple of years before, in the same party as Rosa.

[jimmy olsen]

Well, perhaps if she knew in 1919 what we know now, she'd have described herself as a "socialist" and not as a "communist". Some who flirted with Communism later rejected it on the basis of the fact that those exemplifying it were basically evil dictators - think of Orwell. That was hardly obvious in 1919.

Anyone with a common sense understanding of human nature would realize you'd have to spill oceans of blood to institute such a radical redistribution of wealth and privilege and to construct a power structure to safeguard and perpetuate it. 

[Gups]

Perhaps, having just lived through a war between non-communist countries which claimed more than 8.5m dead, she wasn't as squeamish about these matters as you are.

I seem to recall that she opposed the January revolution in any event or at least its violence.

[The Brain]

Rosa was a Communist, but she had lots of admirable qualities for all that - at least, that's my sense. She was, for example, against Germany's participation in WW1, and accurately predicted that the Russian Revolution would descend into tyranny.

Here are two Rosa quotes:

Luxemburg's best-known quotation is: Freedom is always the freedom of the one who thinks differently (Freiheit ist immer Freiheit der Andersdenkenden), this is from a fuller quotation:
Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of a party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of the dissenter. Not because of the fanaticism of "justice", but rather because all that is instructive, wholesome, and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effects cease to work when "freedom" becomes a privilege.[21]


"Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element"

Can't say as I disagree with her on that.

With the hindsight of history we know that those beliefs are antithetical to a functional communist society though. How did she think her utopia would be attainable with out the bloodshed and tyranny of the Russian revolution?

Well, perhaps if she knew in 1919 what we know now, she'd have described herself as a "socialist" and not as a "communist". Some who flirted with Communism later rejected it on the basis of the fact that those exemplifying it were basically evil dictators - think of Orwell. That was hardly obvious in 1919.

These terms have different meanings now then they did then. The split in the ranks of the German socialists at the end of WW1 had everything to do with contemporary events - the chaos and collapse of Germany, the varying degrees of opposition to the war, etc. - and less to do with ideological differences concerning Marxist utopianism. Remember that those who ended up in charge of Germany also described themselves as "socialists" and were, only a couple of years before, in the same party as Rosa.

It was obvious in 1919 that Communism was bad.

[Barrister]

Rosa was a Communist, but she had lots of admirable qualities for all that - at least, that's my sense. She was, for example, against Germany's participation in WW1, and accurately predicted that the Russian Revolution would descend into tyranny.

Here are two Rosa quotes:

Luxemburg's best-known quotation is: Freedom is always the freedom of the one who thinks differently (Freiheit ist immer Freiheit der Andersdenkenden), this is from a fuller quotation:
Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of a party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of the dissenter. Not because of the fanaticism of "justice", but rather because all that is instructive, wholesome, and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effects cease to work when "freedom" becomes a privilege.[21]


"Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element"

Can't say as I disagree with her on that.

With the hindsight of history we know that those beliefs are antithetical to a functional communist society though. How did she think her utopia would be attainable with out the bloodshed and tyranny of the Russian revolution?

Well, perhaps if she knew in 1919 what we know now, she'd have described herself as a "socialist" and not as a "communist". Some who flirted with Communism later rejected it on the basis of the fact that those exemplifying it were basically evil dictators - think of Orwell. That was hardly obvious in 1919.

These terms have different meanings now then they did then. The split in the ranks of the German socialists at the end of WW1 had everything to do with contemporary events - the chaos and collapse of Germany, the varying degrees of opposition to the war, etc. - and less to do with ideological differences concerning Marxist utopianism. Remember that those who ended up in charge of Germany also described themselves as "socialists" and were, only a couple of years before, in the same party as Rosa.

It was obvious in 1919 that Communism was bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_General_Strike

[Grinning_Colossus]

Luxemburg was a supporter of Kerensky and a critic of the October Revolution. She only rolled the dice on the German Revolution after her allies left her no choice. And an egalitarian state isn't any more antithetical to human nature than the extremes of inequality enforced in the more laissez faire parts of the world -- more equal societies tend to be happier http://people.virginia.edu/~sk8dm/Papers/Oishi-Kesebir-Diener-Inequality%20and%20Happiness-Psych%20Science.pdf.

[Jacob]

Anyone with a common sense understanding of human nature would realize you'd have to spill oceans of blood to institute such a radical redistribution of wealth and privilege and to construct a power structure to safeguard and perpetuate it.

That rules you out.

[Neil]

There is a sweet spot.  If a society is too equal, then it is utterly without value.