Talk:Luxemburgism

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles

Politics

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles

Philosophy

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Description[edit]

This is not a valid description, since it is based on debatable buzzwords: totalitarianism, authoritarianism. This is good for propaganda and Lenin-style bashing of opponents, but not for an encyclopedia.

Also, since you are speaking of today, who are notable luxists? mikka (t) 21:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these objections have been addressed, and I have removed the "accuracy" and "unreferenced" tags. Chick Bowen 02:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for deletion on October 20, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

— JIP | Talk 18:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

Shouldn't this article be called Luxemburgism? After all, it's named after Rosa Luxemburg (correct spelling without o). Luxembourgism sounds to me like some special ideology of the country of Luxembourg... Luis rib 21:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both spellings occur in the relevant literature. I placed a redirect at the page you mention, but that doesn't preclude moving it if there's consensus to do so. If you feel strongly about it, do it. Chick Bowen 21:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel strongly about it, for the same reason as Luis rib. Will move from Luxembourgism presently... Quartier Latin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small point[edit]

Do you really think democratic socialism has nothing to do with this article, Anonymous? Funny, I see a ton of parallels between Luxemburg(ism) and various currents mentioned in that article. I'm not going to get into a revert war over it, however. Quartier Latin1968 19:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suppression of the Constituent Assembly!!!???[edit]

Once again, this outlines why Rosa needs to have a section entitled "Rosa Luxembourg as an Idealist" or "Allegations of Idealism" or "Bolshevik Criticism of Rosa Luxemberg (I like this one best)"

The typical Trotskyist response to this sort of stuff is kinda sorta like this:

Rosa said this was a mistake!!!??? This is the equivilent of expecting a revolution to keep the senate intact here in the US, a body of capitalist prunes that is used to speaking for itself and other capitalists. Not only is it that stupid to keep the CA on the stage, (that is, against common sense from a rev's perspective) but they DID, and it refused to recognize them anyway. Lenin had already said only the Soviet system could lead a revolution (which, at the time when he had died, it had succeeded in doing by all means, regardless of its transition into the capitalist Russian Federation under the advocates of "peaceful coexistence").

I'm trying to get the point across that although Rosa is considered an important figure, SHE IS CONSIDERED AN IDEALIST AT TIMES That is why Trotskyists are not Luxemburgists, as is said but not explained in this article!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.144.216 (talk) 22:26, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that this "idealist" point of view should be added, but perhaps it should also be noted that Luxemburgists that I know (including myself) consider it more an uncompromising attitude that refuses to choose between economic and political freedom (she pretty well says that's the way she wants it to be seen in "The Russian Revolution")(RedAthena1919 (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think it would be possible for Rosa Luxemberg to be in a German Prison in WWI and writing about Bolshevik mistakes occuring in 1919. WWI ended in 1918. Indeed, Luxemberg was freed from prison on November 8, 1918 and slain on January 15, 1919. Therefore it is impossible that she was in jail during WWI writing about events that happened a year later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.4.105 (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some POV problems[edit]

I'm rather unsure about some points in this article, For example, to say that she look a left wing view in opposition to the Bolsheviks is clearl problematic. There are owehere near enough references.--Duncan 22:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda[edit]

I've erased large parts of the final chapter on criticisms, they lack any (let alone credible) references and constitute personal interpretations (eg. the use of the terms idealist to describe her theory). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.31.12.118 (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bolshevik criticism of Rosa Luxemburg[edit]

That section is unreferenced, and look speculative. Any suggestions on how to improve it? --Duncan (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is speculative, propagandist and unreferenced, therefore I've deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.129.225 (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Bolshevik" (or Leninist ?) criticism of Rosa Luxemburg is important. Although the deleted section may actually have needed deletion, a replacement is important, I think. When I was deepest involved in communism (Leninism), Luxemburg was never described as a "communist", so I conclude that Luxemburg and Liebknecht were kind of troubles for the Leninist, and the denial was propagated at least up to the 1980:ies. (Hehe! Cults, cults!) Said: Rursus (☻) 07:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left Communism?[edit]

She is/her theories are considered to resemble more of an Orthodox Marxist perspective. Although some of her views may have influenced Left Communist, that does not make her one. I believe the "Left Communist" should be removed until it can be PROVEN that she is a left communist. In it's place I suggest "Marxism" or "Communism".

The Communism sidebar references Marxist-Leninist, Maoist, Stalinist and Trotskyist movements - the term "Communism" is usually used in reference to these variations and developments of Leninism (which is opposed to Orthodox Marxism in many areas), which Luxemberg strongly opposed. Given that, I think the Communism sidebar is inappropriate. The Marxism sidebar and perhaps the Libertarian socialism sidebar would be more appropriate given her views.-Battlecry (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion / Merger with Rosa Luxemburg page[edit]

This article doesnt cite any sources outside of a small section at the bottom of actual examples of luxemburgist ideas. Instead the article is mostly about the views of Luxemburg. Having political ideas does not an ideology make. I propose that the article be merged into the Rosa Luxemburg article under the Thought section and the small section about luxemburgist groups could be added as a new section on that articleRemusofreem (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is noteworthy that this is the exact same way that German Wikipedia has handled this, not as a seperate article but as a subsection [1] Remusofreem (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]