Below is a comment I left at the Socialism for All Youtube channel. Luxemburg is such an important and compelling revo figure that Leninazis are always trying to bridge or conceal the deep and irreconcilable political differences between Lenin and her. This effort is particularly foul.
S4a uses this platform to attack non-Leninist socialist tendencies, particularly anarchism, which is all well and good as open debate is very much an anarchist principle--as opposed to Leninism--but I will ask him in the name of the workers to stop lying.
He says that anarchism represents an "immaturity of thought." His straw man version of an anarchist may, but not the real thing. It does the workers' movement a disservice when one tendency defames another with lies. S4a says anarchists are against "work." I am no spring chicken, and I have never met a single anarchist who fits this description. There may be some cop pretending to be an anarchist saying such things, but anarchism is in no way anti-work, anti-industrial etc. This is pure nonsense; big, fat, anti-worker lies. In fact, the issues addressed by RL in this grotesquely distorted essay (more to come) and commented upon by s4a were successfully resolved in that chunk of Spain liberated by anarchist workers--yes, workers! (Socialists of all types--i.e. real socialists--should read Frank Mintz's book on the subject.)
S4a's vid is a fab example on why Leninism is so dysfunctional, so counterrevolutionary. This vid is or perpetuates an absolute disgrace. It is an outrage not only against the memory, legacy, and theoretical contribution of one of our martyrs, one of our fallen comrades, but against socialism itself. The presentation of this article is a scam! A fraud! It's squalid. The "alternate translation" of this essay presents it as an endorsement of Bolshevism by a woman who was the latter's most lucid critic, and thereby affiliates the ideals stated therein with Bolshevism when in fact these same ideas were explicitly and pointedly denounced by Lenin before his seizure of power, and once in power he crushed or subverted ALL forms of worker self management.
I am not now nor have I ever been fluent in German. I took the Intro to German 101/2 classes in college in the 70s and remember very little. However, I can translate "What is Bolshevism": "Was ist Bolshevismus." This is not an "alternative" translation of the original, but a tendentious mistranslation--an intentional, disgusting, craven deception, a bait and switch. The actual title, RL's title, is "Die Sozialisierung der Gesellschaft," or "The socialization of society." In her piece, there is not a single reference to Bolshevism or any Bolshevik, nor any retraction of any element of her eloquent criticism of Leninism. Rather, this essays asserts an irreconcilably anti-Leninist position in that she is depicting a scenario of worker power. She describes a worker-run polity, and in all the history of the workers' movement the greatest and most implacable enemy of worker self-management from within the workers' movement was Lenin. His chief theoretical contribution was vanguardism--the belief that workers cannot achieve revolutionary class consciousness on their own or launch a successful revolution on their own, but need to be guided by a small camarilla of professional revolutionaries with absolute power over the workers. This is what defines Leninism and precisely what RL objected to UNTIL HER DYING DAY.
S4a says they disagreed about a few things but were mostly in agreement. I imagine that the Pope and I agre about most things but I'm an atheist and he isn't, so that thing which he has dedicated his life to is what I reject. That which identifies Leninism: vanguardism; party dictatorship over the workers; (un)democratic centralism; banning of other socialist tendencies and their press; all of these things were explicitly and exquisitely denounced by RL. She was a staunch, committed, determined anti-Leninist, anyone suggesting otherwise doesn't know a goddam thing about Rosa Luxemburg. This revolting attempt to affiliate her with that which she despised is an insult to her memory.
RL began her decades-long struggle against Leninism immediately, if tepidly, after the publication in 1902 (I think) of "What is to be Done." Over the years, her critique became more acute and specific and quite elegant. From within the Marxist tradition, she is Lenin's greatest opponent. They may have agreed on most things, but disagreed upon the most important elements of socialist theory and practice. Anyone suggesting otherwise is a fool or a liar. In fact, Lenin had a list--a literal, hand-written list--of people outside Russia whom he regarded to be his enemies and RL was on it. I don't know if she had a list, but Lenin would certainly be on it--right after Radek.
Anyone interested in what RL really believed Bolshevism was should read "Organizational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy," and "The Russian Revolution." There is much, much more, but these are a good intro to RL's deconstruction of Lenin and his thought. After her death, and against the express wishes of Lenin, her more strident anti-Bolshevik tracts were published by her friend Paul Levy. In fact, she completed her last anti-Lenin piece literally while she was on the run from the authorities who would soon capture and kill her. That's how much importance she placed on combatting Leninism.
Long live our comrade Rosa, down with liars.
https://www.rosalux.de/stiftung/historisches-zentrum/rosa-luxemburg/die-sozialisierung-der-gesellschaft
