|
Rosa
Luxemburg was a brilliant theorist, whose classic The
Accumulation of Capital – an essential Marxist
work on imperialism – continues to be a resource for
those who want to understand the world in which we live.
(This is something on which I will share my
thoughts in another session).
But she was committed not only to understanding
the world but also to changing it. I want to concentrate here on her thinking about how to do
this.
Born
into a well-to-do and highly cultured family that would
nurture the critical intelligence of this exceptionally
bright daughter, Rosa came into the world on March 5,
1871 -- just before insurgent workers of Paris rose up
to establish their heroic and short-lived Commune.
Of course, Rosa was Polish, not French, but the
dual revolution of democratic aspiration and industrial
capitalist transformation was generating the rise of
the socialist movement on a global scale.
She was drawn into the revolutionary movement in
Poland before she was fifteen years old.
Even as she was completing her formal academic
education which culminated in a doctorate in economics
at the University of Zurich, she was being trained and
tempered in the Marxist underground.
Her closest comrades were professional
revolutionaries and working-class intellectuals whose
lives were an idealistic and passionate blend of
revolutionary agitation and organizing, intensive
education and analysis, seasoned with debates and
polemics, sometimes punctuated by strikes or
insurrections, and often laced with prison and
martyrdom.[i]
Central
to Rosa Luxemburg’s strategic orientation for
achieving global justice was the commitment to the
liberation struggles of the working-class majority.
Those whose lives and labor keep society running
are the ones who should run society.
It is the great majority of the people who must
shape the future. “Socialism
cannot be made and will not be made by command, not even
by the best and most capable Socialist government,”
she insisted. “It
must be made by the masses, through every proletarian
individual.”[ii]
When
we try to look at the labor movement to which Rosa
Luxemburg belonged, we are at a serious disadvantage.
We tend to superimpose our own experience, or our
lack of experience blended with various abstract
notions, over the living reality of the German
workers’ movement, in which she became involved more
than a century ago.
There are relatively few studies that try to give
a real sense of that movement, and there are very few
attempts to connect such things with the biography and
ideas of Rosa Luxemburg.
In my comments here I want to utilize one of
those rare studies – Mary Nolan’s Social
Democracy and Society: Working-Class Radicalism in
Dusseldorf. And
I will make special reference to one of the local
working-class activists described in that study –
Peter Berten, who was in his mid-20s when Luxemburg
burst on the scene of left-wing German politics in the
late 1890s, and in his mid-40s when she was killed by
right-wing death squads in 1919.[iii]
Luxemburg’s
views on the labor movement corresponded to those of
Karl Marx. She
embraced (as did most German Social Democrats) the
orientation presented in the Communist Manifesto
– that the workers should struggle for various reforms
to expand democratic rights and improve immediate
economic and social conditions, that they should build
increasingly effective and inclusive trade unions to
secure better working conditions and higher living
standards, that they should build their own
working-class political party.
She accepted Marx’s view that the workers’
party should struggle to “win the battle for
democracy” – winning political power in order to
make “despotic inroads” into the capitalist economy
for the purpose of bringing about the socialist
reconstruction of society.
And like Marx, Luxemburg believed that the
defenders of the old social order would not permit a
peaceful and gradual transition to socialism – that
they would unleash violence (perhaps sooner rather than
later) to preserve their privileges, and they would have
to be overcome through the revolutionary struggle of the
workers and their allies.[iv]
The
specifics of Luxemburg’s political orientation assumed
the existence of a mass working-class movement that
included but went beyond trade unions.
There was a vibrant labor press, a network of
cooperatives, a political party, and a growing array of
cultural institutions.
Young
Peter Berten, who completed elementary school and then
learned cabinetmaking from his father, for much of his
young adulthood was an itinerant journeyman moving from
job to job in various cities in the Lower Rhine, and
soon he became a militant of the woodworkers union.
After participating in “lively political
discussions at union meetings” over a period of a few
years, he joined the Social Democratic Party of Germany
(SPD), and the young worker proved to be a capable and
dedicated organizer and agitator for the socialist
cause. By
1904, Berten was a central leader of the SPD in
Dusseldorf, sometimes serving as the organization’s
paid secretary, and in 1908 he became the editor of the
local newspaper of the Dusseldorf socialists, the Volkszeitung,
which had a subscription base of 6000.[v]
In
this period trade union membership in Dusseldorf rose
from 5400 in 1903 to almost 25,000 in 1912, with SPD
membership rising from 950 to more than 7000 in the same
years, about 98% of whom were working class. The SPD
vote in Dusseldorf rose from 20,000 in 1903 to more than
42,000 -- just under 50% of all Dusseldorf’s votes --
in 1912. In 1909 a Volkshaus (or People’s House) – a
political and cultural center – was opened by the
local SPD, “a home where workers are master,” Peter
Berten wrote proudly, “and not dependent on the
goodwill of speculating parasites … a home where they
can raise themselves above the misery of daily life, if
only for a few hours.”
In addition to trade unions and the political
party, more than 2000 workers participated in a consumer
cooperative, and more than 8000 each year took advantage
of legal and social service advisors offered by the
Dusseldorf workers movement.
Hundreds participated in workers education
courses (“to expand people’s knowledge in the class
struggle,” as one SPD militant emphasized, dealing
with such topics as history, economics, and Marxism).
Sometimes thousands each year attended SPD forums on
important issues facing the working class, and public
protests rallying workers – according to SPD flyers --
“to do everything possible to improve the condition of
the working class and eliminate capitalism.”[vi]
Not
all of Germany was Dusseldorf, but Dusseldorf was not
unique. And
this reflected the context in which Luxemburg
functioned. And we will see that her ideas reflected this context, and
resonated among many who were part of this labor
movement. It is worth emphasizing what is hard for many of us in the
United States to remember.
The labor movement is much more than the unions.
Twenty percent of Dusseldorf workers were in
unions, but the ratio of union members to party members
shifted from 13 trade unionists for every 1 party member
in 1901, to just 5 to 1 by 1907, and 3 to 1 in 1912.
Even so, SPD leaders like Berten complained that
too many workers remained “just trade unionists.” [vii]
An
aspect of this dilemma was discussed by Luxemburg in
1904 in the following manner:
The
international movement of the proletariat toward its
complete emancipation is a process peculiar in the
following respect.
For the first time in the history of
civilization, the people are expressing their will
consciously and in opposition to all ruling classes. But this can only be satisfied beyond the limits of the
existing system.
"Now
the mass can only acquire and strengthen this will in
the course of the day-to-day struggle against the
existing social order – that is, within the limits of
capitalist society.
"On
the one hand, we have the mass; on the other, its
historic goal, located outside of existing society.
On one hand, we have the day-to-day struggle; on
the other, the social revolution.
Such are the terms of the dialectical
contradiction through which the socialist movement makes
its way.
"It
follows that this movement can best advance by tacking
betwixt and between the two dangers by which it is
constantly being threatened.
One is the loss of its mass character; the other,
the abandonment of its goal.
One is the danger of sinking back into the
condition of a sect; the other, the danger of becoming a
movement of bourgeois social reform."[viii]
That
dilemma relates to a crisis that developed in the German
Social Democracy. A
strong tendency developed among the national trade union
leadership – members of the SPD, but leading
relatively strong union organizations the majority of
whose members were not SPD members, organizations whose
primary goal was to secure higher wages and better
working conditions within the context of the capitalist
economy. These
trade union leaders wanted to bring the SPD under the
control of the unions, to prevent revolutionary-minded
socialists from pushing the unions in a more radical
direction, and instead getting the SPD to advance the
moderate trade union agenda.
A layer of the SPD functionaries wanted to go in
this moderate direction, which they hoped would help the
party accumulate votes of non-radical (and to some
extent non-working-class) layers of the population.[ix]
The
tension between revolutionaries and reformists cropped
up over and over, with greater intensity – for
example, in 1908 around courses that Luxemburg and
others were teaching at the recently-established Central
Party School in Berlin. Paul Frolich tells us that the more than 200 students who had
attended the school came from “a colorful variety of
backgrounds: next to raw youngsters who had only a
smattering of socialism, but had distinguished
themselves in one way or another in their work for the
party, there were old and experienced party workers.
They represented a very wide variety of
occupations: mechanics, carpenters, decorators, miners,
party secretaries, trade unionists, housewives,
intellectuals. Most
of them had derived their knowledge of socialism only
from agitational pamphlets, and were not used to
systematic thought.”
Peter Nettl records that her students responded
to Luxemburg’s classes with enthusiasm: “She was a
natural and enthusiastic teacher, clarifying the most
complicated philosophical issues of Marxism with lively
similes and illustrations, making the subject not only
real but important.”[x]
Those
who feared that the wrong kind of workers’ education
was being conducted at the school demanded that more
practical matters take the place of revolutionary
abstractions. “Do
the masses have to know the theory of value?
Do the masses need to know what the materialist
theory of history is?” asked Kurt Eisner, who answered
his own question with the comment that such stuff has no
direct value and can even be harmful for working-class
activists, concluding: “Theory frequently has the
actual effect of killing the power to come to
conclusions and to take action.”
Luxemburg’s retort drew enthusiastic
applause at the 1908 Party Congress: “They
think the materialist conception of history, as they
understand it, has on them the effect of crippling their
ability to act and they therefore think that theory
should not be taught at the Party School, but hard
facts, the hard facts of life.
They haven’t the faintest idea that the
proletariat knows the hard facts from its everyday life,
the proletariat knows the ‘hard facts’ better than
Eisner. What
the masses lack is general enlightenment, the theory
which gives us the possibility of systematizing the hard
facts and forging them into a deadly weapon to use
against our opponents.” [xi]
Peter
Berten was a student at the Berlin Party School in 1906, and the
classes he took with Luxemburg – he later acknowledged
– taught him that “one cannot talk of an automatic
development from a capitalist economy to a socialist
one. Capitalism
lays the basis for a socialist society but the working
class must bring it about.”
Berten’s views – as a leader of the SPD in
Dusseldorf, and as the editor of the Volkszeitung
– closely corresponded to the outlook of Luxemburg.
He denounced those who were trying, as he put it,
to turn the SPD into “a bourgeois radical reform
party,” insisting that “we have no cause to give up
our principles and our tactics.
The capitalist system with its injuries cannot be
eliminated by concessions to the ruling class and its
government.” He
explained that the SPD was radical in the Lower Rhine,
and reformist revisionism could not secure a foothold
there, “because the economic and political pressures
that bear down on the workers in our region are so
strong. Through
them the masses are forged together and learn class
consciousness and revolutionary thinking.”
Yet there were fluctuations in working-class
consciousness. In
1913, after SPD electoral victories in Dusseldorf, he
was warning that “some of our comrades seem to be of
the opinion that since we won the Reichstag election
everything has been achieved… Most believe that they
have fulfilled their responsibilities if they pay their
dues and attend an occasional meeting.”
But the combination of seeking petty reforms
while passively waiting for the revolution, Berten
insisted, “cannot possibly inspire and sweep along the
masses. Only
great goals can waken enthusiasm and a willingness to
sacrifice.”[xii]
In
Berten’s opinion, “Only a revolutionary tactic,
which always builds on the reality of class conflict and
appeals to the elemental power of the masses, can waken
the energy, activism, and enthusiasm of the exploited
proletariat.” He
emphasized in the Volkszeitung that “the mass
strike is the method of struggle which is most suited to
the social position of the proletariat.”
In his opinion: “What the proletariat
possesses, in addition to its chains, is the power that
does not disappear through struggle.
Rather it grows until it suffices to break the
chains.” Mary
Nolan reports that “Berten and several other
functionaries were the most vociferous proponents of the
mass strike, but their ideas found a sympathetic echo
among comrades locally and regionally.”[xiii]
As
Luxemburg explained it, the workings and contradictions
of capitalism can sometimes result in what she called a
“violent and sudden jerk which disturbs the momentary
equilibrium of everyday social life,” aggravating
“deep-seated, long-suppressed resentment” among
workers and other social layers, resulting in an
explosive and spontaneous reaction on a mass scale –
in the form of strikes spreading through an industry and
sometimes involving many, most, or all occupations and
workplaces in one or more regions.
Such mass strikes can go far beyond economic
issues, sometimes involving whole communities in mass
demonstrations and street battles, and are the means by
which workers seek to “grasp at new political rights
and attempt to defend existing ones.”
Once such strikes begin, there can occur
tremendous solidarity, discipline, and effective
organization. But
they have an elemental quality which defies any notion
of revolutionary blueprints being drawn up in advance.
Luxemburg believed that Social Democrats (whom
she defined as “the most enlightened, most
class-conscious vanguard of the proletariat”) should
play an active role not only when such explosions occur,
but also beforehand in helping to educate and organize
more and more workers in preparation for such
developments, which would enable Social Democrats to
assume leadership of the whole movement. She by no means believed that such upsurges would necessarily
result in socialist revolution.
But neither did she believe that they would wreck
labor organizations.
Rather, in her words, they became “the starting
point of a feverish work of organization.” While labor and socialist bureaucrats might “fear that the
organizations will be shattered in a revolutionary
whirlwind like rare porcelain,” Luxemburg’s
observations of actual mass strikes during 1905-1906 in
Eastern Europe showed that the opposite is the case:
“From the whirlwind and the storm, out of the fire and
glow of the mass strike and the street fighting rise
again, like Venus from the foam, fresh, young, powerful,
buoyant trade unions.”
Some segments of the working class cannot be
unionized through “the form of quiet, systematic,
partial trade union struggles,” she noted, and her
words drive home the point that “a powerful and
reckless fighting action of the proletariat, born of a
revolutionary situation, must surely react upon the
deeper-lying layers and ultimately draw all those into a
general economic struggle who, in normal times, stand
aside from the daily trade union fight.”[xiv]
Luxemburg’s
revolutionary orientation resonated throughout much of
the German labor movement.
There were, however, powerful trade union leaders
who despised her. They
were insulted by her comment that trade union struggles
can only be like the labor of Sisyphus (rolling the
boulder up a hill, only to have capitalist dynamics push
the gains back down again), and that only socialism will
secure permanent gains for the working class.
Of course, she added that it is necessary
for trade unions to wage that struggle in order to
defend and improve the workers’ conditions in the
here-and-now. But
this did not make up for her barbed observation that
“the specialization of professional activity as
trade-union leaders, as well as the naturally restricted
horizon which is bound up with disconnected economic
struggles in a peaceful period, leads only too easily,
among trade union officials, to bureaucratism and a
certain narrowness of outlook.”
She was specific: first, there was “an
overvaluation of the [trade union] organization, which
from a means has been gradually been changed into an end
in itself, a precious thing, to which the interests of
the struggles should be subordinated,” and second
“the trade union leaders, constantly absorbed in the
economic guerrilla war whose plausible task it is to
make the workers place the highest value on the smallest
economic achievement, every increase in wages and
shortening of the working day, gradually lose the power
of seeing the larger connections and taking a survey of
the whole position” facing the working class.[xv]
But
other trade unionists, a left-wing dissident current
which Peter Berten and others represented, appreciated
her approach to struggling for reforms (relevant to
workplace struggles no less than to parliamentary
struggles) --
the notion that an uncompromising militancy will gain
more than an allegedly “practical-minded”
moderation. If
one wants a shorter work day, for example, and one hears
that the bourgeois politicians (or managerial
negotiators) are prepared to favor a ten-hour workday
but not an eight-hour workday, one should not offer to
form an alliance with them in favor of a ten-hour day.
One should instead engage in a militant struggle
for the eight-hour day as the best means for pressuring
them into actually coming up with their ten-hour
compromise. This
also builds a class-conscious militancy necessary for
future struggles.
This
orientation comes through even in the way that Luxemburg
talks about May Day in 1913. She said: “The brilliant basic idea of May Day is the
autonomous, immediate stepping forward of the
proletarian masses, the political mass action of the
millions of workers who otherwise are atomized by the
barriers of the state in the day-to-day parliamentary
affairs, who mostly can give expression of their own
will only through the ballot, through the election of
their representatives.”
Noting the rising tide of imperialist
exploitation and violence, she concluded that “the
more the idea of May Day, the idea of resolute mass
actions as a manifestation of international unity, and
as a means of struggle for peace and for socialism,
takes root in the strongest troops of the International,
the German working class, the greater is our guarantee
that out of the world war which, sooner or later, is
unavoidable, will come forth a definite and victorious
struggle between the world of labor and of capital.”[xvi]
Despite
considerable lip-service given to Marxist theory and
socialist goals, the German Social Democratic Party
“looks damn bad--completely headless... No one leads
it, no one shoulders responsibility,” as she put it.
Instead there was organizational routinism, there
was a focus on winning more elections to put more
socialist politicians into parliament where they
maneuvered and bargained for limited reforms, and there
was the growing influence of a powerful trade union
leadership focused on winning piecemeal concessions
within the existing social order.
Such things tended to remove the masses of
workers as an active factor in the struggle for a better
future, keeping them under “the heel [as she put it]
of the old authorities and, what’s more, to the upper
strata of opportunist [socialist] editors,
[parliamentary] deputies, and trade union leaders.”
In
the following year, Luxemburg and her revolutionary
comrades found themselves trapped in the left-wing of a
bureaucratized mass party which, when World War I
erupted in 1914, supported the brutalizing imperialist
war effort instead of organizing working-class
resistance. More
than this, its leaders looked with relief upon the
imprisonment of Rosa Luxemburg for anti-war activity.
In the aftermath of the war, as the working-class
radicalization foreseen by Luxemburg gathered momentum,
the Social-Democratic bureaucracy was able to divert
much of the proletarian militancy into “safe”
channels. Luxemburg
and the most committed revolutionaries were first
blocked and then expelled, left without an adequate
revolutionary instrument of their own.
Amid the rising proletarian ferment and
counter-revolutionary violence of late 1918 and early
1919, they were forced to begin rebuilding an
organization.
In
1917 Lenin and the Bolsheviks, thanks to the
working-class and peasant upsurge in their own country,
and thanks also to years of serious organizational
development had succeeded in establishing a
revolutionary workers’ government in Russia and
appealed for the spread of revolutions throughout
Europe, and beyond Europe, but in highly industrialized
Germany most of all.
Increasing numbers of German workers and
war-weary soldiers responded with enthusiasm (so, for
that matter, did Rosa Luxemburg, who soon was released
from prison). This
coincided with the collapse of the German war effort,
and the collapse of the monarchy. It seemed that Germany was on the verge of socialist
revolution--but the only substantial organizational
expression of socialism in the country was the German
Social Democratic Party which by now was in the hands of
the worst of opportunistic bureaucrats who were far more
hostile to working-class revolution than to their own
landed aristocrats and big business interests.
The result was a compact between the Social
Democratic leadership and the German economic elite,
also involving the top levels of the old governmental
and military apparatus, to preserve as much of the old
social order as possible, masked for a short while with
socialist and democratic rhetoric.
In
order to win the radicalized masses to a genuinely
revolutionary socialist alternative, Luxemburg and
others formed the Spartakusbund--the Spartacus
League (named after the leader of the great slave revolt
that shook the Roman empire) -- which was not strong
enough to lead the workers to a revolutionary victory.
At the same time, it is important not to
under-rate the Spartakusbund.
Historian William Pelz, argues that “by war’s
end, Spartakus had grown into an organization of
thousands with influence in numerous working class
areas.” Since
Pelz has inquired more carefully than most into the
nature and dimensions of this movement that Luxemburg
led, it is worth considering more of what he has to say
in his fine study The Spartakusbund and the German
Working Class Movement 1914-1919:
"Struggling
underground, the Spartakusbund was able to grow,
propagate its ideas and develop linkages with
like-minded revolutionary groups and individuals, based
heavily in urban industrial areas.
Thus, Luxemburg, [Karl] Liebknecht and the other
Spartakusbund leaders directed what was the heart of a
growing revolutionary workers movement.
Young, active and concentrated in the most modern
vital sections of the economy, Spartakusbund members
were to prove the revolutionary voice within the
ideological vacuum [which the bureaucratized leadership
of the German] Social Democracy labored to maintain]".[xvii]
This
suggests that if Luxemburg, Liebknecht and other key
Spartakus leaders had not met their deaths in 1919, then
around them a powerful, self-confident, increasingly
experienced leadership core would have crystallized to
lead a growing German Communist Party to victory in,
say, 1920 or 1923, when genuine revolutionary
possibilities emerged.
This would have rescued the Russian Revolution
from the isolation that would soon generate Stalinism,
at the same time preventing the possibility of the rise
of Hitlerism in Germany.
From
the standpoint of those determined to preserve the old
social order, Rosa Luxemburg could not be allowed to
live. The
fact that she was a woman, and that her life had
included -- on her own terms -- sensual love and
revolutionary activity, made her a special target. The cultural and political reactionaries of her time were
fixated on the sexuality and political subversion
represented by this “Jewish slut” who was the
repulsive “bloody Rosa,” someone fit to be murdered
in the so-called “Spartakus days” of January 1919,
when--against Luxemburg’s warnings--revolutionary
euphoria led her comrades into an ultra-left collision
with a better organized, better armed, powerful enemy
that had been waiting for an opportunity to unleash the
death squads of the so-called Freikorps.
But
Luxemburg’s vibrant, passionate life and intelligence
are with us still in her writings, which continue to
have an amazing relevance to the realities that we face
today. I
think this comrade would want us to give serious thought
to the question of what we can do to help change the
world to a place in which the free development of each
person would be the condition for the development of
all. This
conference – in which we are collectively seeking to
learn the lessons of Luxemburg’s ideas and activities,
and to apply them to our own time – not only does
honor to this wonderful revolutionary, but (with luck
and hard work) can help direct our attention and
energies into a hopeful future.
[i]
The “dual revolution” concept is highlighted in
Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Revolution, 1789-1848
(New York: Vintage Books, 1996), and a succinct
survey of the rise, within this context, of the
workers’ movement of which Luxemburg was part can
be found in Wolfang Abendroth, A Short History of
the European Working Class (New York: Monthly
Review Press, 1972).
For a useful new collection of Luxemburg’s
writings, see Peter Hudis and Keven B. Anderson,
eds., The Rosa Luxemburg Reader (New York:
Monthly Review Press, 2004), which, in combination
with volumes edited by Le Blanc and Waters cited
below, provides the bulk of what is available to
English-language readers.
[ii]
Quoted by Richard Hyman, “Marxism and the
Sociology of Trade Unionism,” Trade Unions
Under Capitalism, ed. by Tom Clarke and Laurie
Clements (Glasgow: Fontana, 1977), 389.
The range of Luxemburg’s thought, and key
aspects of her biography and personality, are
elaborated in Paul
Le Blanc, ed., Rosa Luxemburg, Reflections
and Writings (Amherst, NY: Humanity Books,
1999), which on pages 256-257 includes a somewhat
different translation of this passage from
Luxemburg’s “Speech to the Founding Convention
of the Communist Party.”
[iii]
Mary Nolan, Social Democracy and Society:
Working-Class Radicalism in Dusseldorf, 1890-1920
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).
Other works that do this include Vernon
Lidtke, The Alternative Culture: Socialist Labor
in Imperial Germany (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1985), and William Pelz, The Spartakusbund
and the German Working-Class Movement, 1914-1919
(Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1987).
[iv]
The fundamental continuity in the orientation of
Marx and Luxemburg (along with Engels, Lenin,
Trotsky, Gramsci) is indicated in Paul
Le Blanc, From Marx to Gramsci: A Reader
in Revolutionary Marxist Politics (Amherst, NY:
Humanity Books, 1996).
[vi]
Ibid., 99, 108, 135-136, 137, 162,191, 216.
[viii]
Rosa Luxemburg, “Organizational Question of Social
Democracy,” Rosa Luxemburg Speaks, ed. by
Mary-Alice Waters (New York: Pathfinder Press,
1970), 128-129
[ix]
Carl Schorske, German Social Democracy, 1905-1917
(New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1955).
[x]
Paul Frolich, Rosa Luxemburg: Her Life and Work
(New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972),146-147;
Peter Nettl, Rosa Luxemburg, Abridged Edition
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1969), 264.
Also see Norman Geras, The Legacy of Rosa
Luxemburg (London: Verso, 1983).
[xi]
Rosa Luxemburg, “Speech to Nurnberg Congress
(1908),” Selected Political Writings, ed.
by Dick Howard (New York: Monthly Review Press,
1971), 282-282.
[xii]
Nolan, 187, 189,193-195, 233, 243.
[xiv]
This draws from my discussion in From Marx to
Gramsci, 72-73.
[xv]
“Mass Strike, Political Party Party, and Trade
Unions,” Rosa Luxemburg Speaks, 214.
[xvi]
“The Idea of May Day on the March,” Selected
Political Writings, 319-321.
[xvii]
Pelz, 286, 287, 289.
Also valuable, although evaluating Luxemburg
and the Spartakusbund more critically, is
Chris Harman, The Lost Revolution, Germany
1918-1923 (London: Bookmarks, 1982).
|