Remembering Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht

Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht

Dr Tristan Ewins



16/1/2019


Comrade Marcus Strom alerted me and many others on Facebook that 15/1/19 was the 100th Anniversary of the brutal murder of Communist leaders Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht ; and the dumping of their bodies in the Landwehr Canal in Berlin. Liebnecht was an outstanding orator and leader. Meanwhile, Rosa Luxemburg (a Jewish Communist ; born in Poland – but migrating to Germany where the class struggle appeared the most advanced) is the best remembered today. This is largely because she is survived by a plethora of theoretical and practical political-literary work – much of it still relevant for the Left.


The broad example of the slide into war ; and the murder of Rosa and Karl is still instructive today of the dangers of certain kinds of ‘social patriotism’. In 1914 the parliamentary caucus of the SPD (German Social Democrats) voted in favour of war credits – to fund the War. This was against the standing policy of the Second International. Specifically it was the right-wing leadership of the Social Democratic Government following the 1918-19 Revolution who ordered the murders. For genuine socialists, the names “Ebert, Noske and Scheidemann” will forever live in infamy. And deservedly so.


It is disturbing to think that the SPD was perhaps the leading Social Democratic Party in Europe in 1914 – and yet it crumbled under pressure at the first real hurdle. Many socialists – including Karl Liebnecht and Rosa – tried to agitate against the coming blood-bath. Rosa was imprisoned for the duration of the war after distributing anti-war material. For years social democratic parties had talked about internationalism in the instance of a conflict. But in practice the German trade unions had been subverted ; had embraced a kind of ‘ethno-nationalism’.


And they effectively fell into line in return for a handful of reforms.


Therefore perhaps there was no social or economic basis for stopping the war. But the capitulation of the SPD parliamentary caucus set a demoralising example – which resulted in the split in the Social Democratic movement ; with the most uncompromising anti-war elements re-forming as Communist parties.


Right Social Democrats ; people like Ebert, Noske and Scheidemann ; were sold on ethno-nationalism in Germany since the start (of the war). They capitulated again when some social democrats argued the war should only be supported insofar as it was concerned with ‘national defence' ; and never be allowed to turn into 'a war of conquest'. But the German Army hierarchy demanded open ended support for the war instead. Again, in 1914 the caucus rolled over entirely.


Karl Kautsky – the leader of the ‘Marxist Centre’ – and for a time the most authoritative Marxist intellectual in Europe and the world - argued for a symbolic abstention on the issue of war credits. But this gained little traction. Lenin was to revisit Kautsky’s position following the October 1917 Russian Revolution, branding him a ‘Renegade’. But more on Kautsky later.


The real worry is how the unions remained so conservative at the start of the war. And swallowed militarist nationalism hook, line and sinker. In any case the war was to destroy those same unions ; as worker’s organisation collapsed in the face of total war mobilisation. It shows that achieving intellectual leadership of a socialist movement is not enough unless socialist, anti-imperialist and internationalist values can be successfully imparted to a broader base. As well as a willingness to fight when the situation demands it.

Who knows what motivations drove the German Social Democrats to support war in 1914? Fear of imprisonment or execution? Fear of the organisational destruction of the party? (False) assumptions the war would be short? Penetration of the caucus by government agents? Again: many social democrats insisted that support for the war be withdrawn once it became 'a war of conquest'. But the reality was that the Army had the guns. Again: the parliamentary caucus folded in the face of military pressure.


But what many Leninist and Stalinist critics do not recognise is that by 1915 the 'Centrists' (ie: as in the Marxist Centrists) had began agitating for peace at Zimmerwald. Those people argued for a separate peace. So did the Revisionist Socialist, Eduard Bernstein. By comparison, Lenin argued for civil war - to turn the war into Revolution across all Europe if possible. For all Lenin’s criticisms of Karl Kautsky – by 1915 he (Kautsky) was himself openly fighting against the war. The critiques of Bolshevism by such diverse figures as Luxemburg, Martov and Kautsky – are still worth reading today as we grapple with the meaning and legacy of the Russian Revolution and its eventual descent into Stalinism. (though many critics under-play the severity of the conditions faced by the Bolsheviks ; and the role of Western intervention in fuelling the centralisation and resort to Terror which opened the way for Stalinism ; That includes destabilisation and support for the White Armies – which meant the threat of starvation and heating fuel shortages for ordinary Russians )


Rosa Luxemburg is famed for her unique, libertarian Marxist contributions to socialist theory and practice. Her theory of the ‘spontaneity of the masses’ is more nuanced than shallow critics would allow for ; positing a dialectical relationship between Party leadership and proletarian initiative. She recognised early on the potential of the Mass Strike. Also, she feared the consequences of over-centralisation within the Bolshevik Party for any revolution ; and particularly the substitution of the Party – and later the Central Committee – for real, grassroots and participatory proletarian democracy. For her there could be no compromise or ‘middle way’ between Reform and Revolution. She was a strong critic of Revisionism ; including the positions of Eduard Bernstein.


But there are traditions of Left Social Democracy which are not stained by that. For instance the Austro-Marxists. The Austro-Marxists built a participatory counter-culture (workers’ sports, radio stations, libraries, forums, orchestras) ; and progressively funded public housing and amenities like laundries and pools for workers. They even maintained their own militia to defend ‘the democratic path to socialism’. This contributed to the sense that ‘Red Vienna’ was ‘a showcase of Social Democracy’. Though they also made certain fatal mistakes (eg: letting go of their grip on the state apparatus of force in the 1920s) which made it easier in the end for fascists to seize power in 1934.


So as against Rosa Luxemburg I believe a ‘middle way’ of ‘revolutionary reforms’ is possible. But on the 100th Anniversary of her death it is better to honour her very significant legacy. The legacy of her bravery and self-sacrifice. Of her intellect ; her uncompromising values ; her commitment to the working class and her faith in what she believed to be the coming revolution.


On the other hand, the example of the 20th and early 21st centuries (including the rise of fascism ; and also of neo-liberalism) appear to have put paid to a sense that some ‘inevitable teleology towards socialism’ can be counted on. Historical outcomes are far more contingent and uncertain than the old Marxists were willing to admit. Even though the continuation of neo-liberal capitalism is likely to cause intense human suffering – with increases in the intensity of labour ; and further cyclical crises and class bifurcation. And environmental crises also. Perhaps old Marxist claims to ‘inevitability’ provided morale and confidence. (as Kautsky put it – “the proletariat’s belief in its own strength”)


But while there is *hope*, notions of inevitability can no longer be maintained. Barbarism is as likely as socialism ; and that itself is a good reason to fight.


Rosa’s fears were realised in the end as Bolshevism gave way to Stalinism. For Communists it is instructive to read her critiques of Bolshevism to get a sense of the dangers associated with Stalinism. And also even with Trotskyism and Leninism. Trotsky wrote of a ‘Soviet Thermidor’ in his critique of Stalinism, ‘The Revolution Betrayed’. But in reality Trotksy supported the same policies of centralisation which led to a situation akin to the demise of the French Revolution - with the rise of the Napoleonic Empire in the place of the Republic. (Stalin is seen as a ‘Bonpartist’ figure) ; Only Stalin’s repression of his own people – and his Terror against them - was far more extensive than under other ‘Bonapartist’ regimes.


Compared not only with Stalin – but also with Lenin and Trotsky – Luxemburg stands for a kind of libertarian communism. To this day the leadership she provided with her activism and her writings – set a redemptive example for a Left which is often accused of ‘authoritarianism’ or ‘totalitarianism’. Luxemburg was a democrat and libertarian-revolutionary-communist ; and an uncompromising opponent of the wholesale slaughter of War ; and the Imperialist designs of the ‘Great Powers’.


My personal inclination is more towards the example of the reformed relative (Marxist) centre following World War One. Especially the Austro-Marxists. (though I am critical of them on certain counts as well) But Rosa’s steadfast bravery ; her self-sacrifice in pursuit of peace, and for the liberation of the working class ; should always be honoured on the Left.


Today’s Left needs to engage with past Social Democracy (and Communism) if it is to understand its past ; draw the necessary lessons ; and better plan for its future. This should also include a consideration of the sources of the split in Social Democracy in 1914 ; and the historical ramifications of that. Rosa Luxemburg ; and others like Karl Korsch ; showed that a different kind of (libertarian) communism is possible.


A different kind of social democracy is also possible: committed over the long term to the pursuit of ‘revolutionary reforms’ which would deepen democracy, transform the economy , and over time challenge the class system.


May Rosa Luxemburg (and Karl Liebknecht) always be honoured and remembered on the Left.

The Meaning of ANZAC Day

above: The Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne, Australia.  Built originally to commemorate Australia's fallen in World War One.

ANZAC Day is the day on which Australians remember those fallen in war.  In this article Tristan Ewins considers the real meaning and relevance of that day.

by Tristan Ewins

ANZAC Day is a day of remembrance for Australia and New Zealand: a time of reflection upon the involvement of those countries in terrible wars. Specifically, the term ‘ANZAC’ is derived from the words “Australian and New Zealand Army Corps”: the military organisation within which Australians and New Zealanders fought in World War One. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzac_Day

All in all almost 80,000 Australians and New Zealanders died during the First World War: and many more still were terribly maimed, or left with grievous psychological scars.

The day has also developed to be considered a day of remembrance with regard to all wars and conflicts in which Australia and/or New Zealand have been involved. It should also be mentioned, therefore, that in the Second World War almost 30,000 Australians died. And tens of thousands suffered terrible cruelty as prisoners of war – especially of the Japanese. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Australia_during_World_War_II

More recently annual commemorations of the Gallipoli campaign in Turkey have seen tens of thousands of Australians undertaken a ‘pilgrimage’ to ANZAC Cove. The bloodbath of Gallipoli has been established as a cornerstone of Australian identity.

Australians have also been involved in conflicts in Korea, Vietnam and more recently elsewhere – including Afghanistan and Iraq.

In modern times AZNAC Day has been developed into a day whose meaning and significance is hotly contested.

Australian academic Marilyn Lake has contributed to a book: ‘What’s Wrong with ANZAC?’ - along with Henry Reynolds, in which she dares to criticise the ‘ANZAC legend’. Her views were expressed recently and concisely, also, in an op-ed in ‘The Age’ – a Melbourne newspaper.

Lake criticises the ‘coming of age’ narrative: the idea that Australia needed its ‘baptism of fire’ to prove itself in the horrors of war, and thus take its place amongst the nations. But instead Lake sees a way beyond what she calls ‘the AZNAC myth’:

“until we have the courage to detach ourselves from the mother country, declare our independence, inaugurate a republic, draw up a constitution that recognises the first wars of dispossession fought against indigenous peoples. Thus we can truly make history in Australia.” http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/fight-free-of-anzac-lest-we-forget-other-stories-20090422-afb5.html

For Lake, ANZAC is a myth which excludes women: essentially “[locating] our national identity in the masculine domain of military warfare.” Further she sees the ANZAC story as eclipsing other narratives: of struggle against war and oppression, racism and sexism; and “the democratic social experiments and visions of social justice that once defined Australia.” http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/fight-free-of-anzac-lest-we-forget-other-stories-20090422-afb5.html

As many of us would have expected, the reaction from the dominant right-populist elements in Australia’s media has been one of apparent outrage and indignation.

Neil Mitchell from radio 3AW in Melbourne might be considered a liberal in comparison to Melbourne Talk Radio’s Steve Price, but on April 21st he went so far as to say about Marilyn Lake and other contributors to ‘What’s wrong with ANZAC?’:

"I think today there is screaming proof that some academics should be legally required to get a real job, in the real world, and be legally required to keep their mouth shut…. A bunch of academics have announced today that ANZAC day is past its use-by date and is just an exercise in male bonding which is not diversified enough for modern Australia… For heavens sake, what do they want, do they want marches for vegetarian lesbians?” http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-generic-blog/is-anzac-day-past-its-useby-date/20100421-stj7.html

Mitchell’s treatment of the matters raised by Lake and others is regrettable as it trivialises the critical issues raised in ‘What’s wrong with ANZAC?’ concerning colonialism, and what Lake has called “the militarisation of Australian history”. His response also needs be called into question in that it challenges that right to dissent and free criticism which really ought to be at the heart of our identity as a liberal democracy.

As Lake observed in an interview with Mitchell, though – also on April 21st – war destroys men. Many Australians who experienced war in the 20th Century were so deeply scarred not only in their bodies – but also in their hearts and minds - that not only did they not march on ANZAC Day, but they tried to avoid even talking about those experiences.

For now, though, we will consider the Australian experience in World War Two.

There is no problem in solemn commemoration of the costs of war. And indeed we should remember that in the Second World War Australians played a vital role in fighting fascism in Europe and North Africa, and ending Imperial Japanese domination and oppression of Asia and the Pacific.

From my own perspective, my grandfather served in Singapore during World War II as a Corporal in the 8th Division Australian General Hospital. My grandfather did not wield a rifle. Rather he was an ambulance driver whose job it was to save lives. Apparently his bravery in the face of fire, rescuing the many wounded, was such that his mates would later quite earnestly insist he deserved a Victoria Cross. In military history, however, this kind of bravery is seldom recognised.

In the heat of battle my grandfather’s leg was shattered by gunfire. He was taken prisoner by the Japanese, and witnessed incredible cruelty during his many years in Changi POW camp. Beatings and torture were common. POWs were subject by Japanese guards to cruel and unusual punishments, and summary executions under the most brutal of circumstances. I have been asked by family not to go into details as “the men wouldn’t want it”. But while I’ve accepted this, I do still hope somehow the full story will come out – and for survivors to receive the recognition they deserve from the Japanese government.

In Changi food was scarce also. Prisoners were sometimes fed banana skins – and if they were lucky a handful of dirty rice. Malnutrition, and conditions such as beri beri, malaria, dysentry and infections were common.

Australian and other POWs were also used as slave labour – even when they were obviously ill or wounded. Thousands thus were to die in captivity.

Specifically, my grandfather had contracted beri beri and malaria while a POW in Changi. Beri beri was generally caused by a lack of Thiamine (B1) in the diet. The most visually obvious symptom was extreme swelling, including of the stomach. (akin to images many people will have seen of starving children in Africa) Symptoms included paralysis, mental and emotional disturbance, awful pain, vomiting: with the risk of heart failure and death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriberi

Women also endured suffering and brutality in Changi at the hands of the Japanese. One such Australian was Vivian Bullwinkle, a nurse in the 13th Australian General Hospital. http://www.awm.gov.au/exhibitions/fiftyaustralians/5.asp

Attempting to flee Singapore, Bullwinkle’s ship was sunk by Japanese bombers. Some of the survivors managed to make their way to shore: but none would have anticipated what happened next. First male survivors were bayonetted. Thereafter, Japanese troops gathered the women together and ordered them to wade into the ocean.

What followed was a barrage of Japanese machine gun fire. All the women were thus slaughtered: with the exception of Bullwinkle herself, who while injured (shot in the hip), feigned death. Fortunately, when later captured by other Japanese soldiers, these did not know of the atrocity, and Bullwinkle was formally taken as a prisoner of war. (POW) http://www.vivianbullwinkel.com/documentary.html

The next few years were to be a living hell. Eight of her nursing colleagues where to perish of starvation. But Bullwinkle survived. After her liberation, Bullwinkle committed herself to nursing, and worked to raise awareness about Japanese wartime atrocities. http://www.vivianbullwinkel.com/documentary.html

The point of these stories is to emphasise the extent of the endurance amdist suffering of Australian POWS: soldiers and nurses. The spirit of mateship, especially: of camraderie between soldiers in intolerable conditions; ought never be forgotten. For women, these stories are also crucial: the Second World War was a time of transformation and of perseverance amidst hardship for women as well as men. ‘Total war’ mobilised and impacted upon the lives of women as never before.

There are some who look upon these stories as relics of a past-age: of a ‘White Australia’ which no longer holds resonance. But if we insist on an inclusive narrative of Australian history: why should these stories be excluded? And why ought Australia’s diverse communities – welcomed into the Australian nation – not take these stories also as their own? That is: a narrative which emphasises solidarity between ordinary people – even in the worst of circumstances?

But this ought never be distorted into a nationalist device which glorifies war as ‘the making of men’ or ‘the birth of nationhood’.

There is a danger that uncritical celebration of Australia’s military traditions and history could well give support to those today who seek to legitimise Australian participation in unjust wars in the here and now – by reference to such sentiment.

It is troubling even today to hear talk of the First World War as a ‘fight for freedom and democracy.’ These kind of rationalisations, it should be remembered, were employed by the Germans as well. In reality the war was a struggle not only for domination of Europe, but to carve up the world into spheres of influence; spheres of imperialist exploitation. In World War One soldiers of the Australian Dominion fought for the interests of the British Empire.

We should never forget the suffering and the sacrifices of Australian men and women in wartime. And we should celebrate and sustain traditions of solidarity even in the worst of circumstances. Furthermore, again to this day there are survivors of, and families of those who experienced war-time atrocities: who have waited decades for recognition by a Japanese government that remains in denial.  Even today – with time running out – these people deserve justice.

But also, we need to recall the human costs of war in the broadest sense: that war ought only be a last resort in the face of oppression and conquest which threaten our lives, our rights and our liberties. And even then we need be aware that there are those would appeal to such values: but behind whose rhetoric there lies cyncial geo-politics.

To conclude, regardless of the importance of Australian wartime stories, we should take seriously claims by Marilyn Lake and others of a “militarisation” of Australian history.

The narrative of Australian history needs to be broader: telling also of Australian egalitarianism and democracy; and also of the struggle for recognition and justice amongst Australia’s many-varied communities.

The fight against fascism was a crucial one, but we should not harbour illusions about the nature of other conflicts: allowing them to be rationalised behind a veil of nationalism.

Behind mock-populist outrage about the contributions of Marilyn Lake and others there is a debate that needs to be had about Australian identity and history. We should never forget - but we ought never abandon our critical faculties either: especially when it comes to matters of war: of human suffering, and of life and death.

nb: If you enjoyed this article pls join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.

see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565