Rosa Luxemburg: A Hagiography

Mills book on Luxemburg is a bit of a challenge. I first got introduced to Rosa Luxemburg in the late 60s in Cambridge when I was first teaching at MIT. My office was in the old wooden Building 20, and one night allegedly the Rosa Luxemburg chapter of SDS attempted to burn the building down, with me in it. My second exposure was in the late 90s with my Polish partners in Warsaw, several early Solidarity members who had been imprisoned by the Soviets, and there I was lectured about Luxemburg’s less that sterling image. Later my Russian partners had similar feelings. Thus it became important to better understand this person. Who was this person that could become the flag bearer of those seeking to overthrow governments and yet be so despised by regular Poles and former Communists.

There are many bios of Luxemburg and Mills adds to this pile. Unlike all other bios, which follow the tried and true path of facts and time, Mills is a combination hagiography and polemic. Her book is one of unending praise for Luxemburg while at the same time telling the reader what they should believe. For example, on p 180 in the very last sentence she states:

“See that you join Rosa Luxemburg’s march.”

I have never seen a biography ending with commands! But that appears to be the way of Mills.

Now as to the book itself.

P 33 The author makes the assertion that there was a false claim regarding the success of capitalism in Germany in the late 19^th century. There seems to be no basis for this claim other that the author’s assertion of it being factual. In reality is demands a clear definition of what capitalism meant, then and now, and then in Germany at that time one would question it given the overbearing political environment. Germany was not England.

Pp 36-37 Here the authors spends time inserting Marxist historical determinism. This concept has always been a difficult one and in fact it often got Soviet mathematicians in trouble when dealing with stochastic processes. Reality is uncertain and deterministic historical movements, Marxism being one, have been challenged by the random occurrence of events. History is neither preordained nor predictable.

P 95 The author asserts a statement by Luxemburg that capitalism is the first form of economy with propagandist power. It is not readily obvious that such is the case. One may argue that the rule of the Church under the two swords construct for almost a millennium was an exercise of a propagandist and a structured economy. I admit that may be a bridge too far but it may have some merit in the underlying historical facts.

P 140 The author presents classic Luxemburg polemic when she quotes: “Imperialism or Socialism. War or Revolution. There is no third way.” This is a classic example of Luxemburg and her treatment of extremes. Luxemburg was also a pure internationalist, eschewing any form of nationalism. That was also one the sore points between her and the Soviets.

P 142 The author provides one of the more interesting quotes of Luxemburg. Namely, “Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for one who thinks differently.”  This has been a challenge for many who differed from Luxemburg, for she asserts that freedom of thought is sine qua non, but then again ….

P 151 The authors presents a brief discussion of the Spartacus League. Frankly it may be worth a full chapter.

P 173 The author conflates Luxemburg and Arendt. I find that a difficult match. If one reads Arendt and Revolutions one perceives a great appreciation for the American revolution and her disdain for the French and in turn for the Russian.

To provide a personal bent on this book, one should know that my grandmother was the head of the Socialist Party in New York, ran for Congress in 1916, jailed and tortured by Wilson’s people in 1917 for seeking women’s right to vote and continued active through 1922. I grew up with her so I have first hand knowledge of Socialists. However, she was neither a Communist nor a Marxist. Thus, I find the author’s intertwining of Socialist ideas and Marxist rhetoric a further complication in reading this book.

The book is less a biography and more a person’s journey understanding Luxemburg. If it had been presented as such then there would not have been such an ambiguity of expectations on the part of the reader.