Talk:Luxemburgism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Social and political philosophy Related task forces (major traditions): Marxism Related task forces (periods): Contemporary philosophy

Contents 1 Description 2 Spelling 3 Small point 4 Suppression of the Constituent Assembly!!!??? 5 Some POV problems 6 Propaganda 7 Bolshevik criticism of Rosa Luxemburg

[edit] Description

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)

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

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)

[edit] Spelling

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)

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)

I feel strongly about it, for the same reason as Luis rib. Will move from Luxembourgism presently... QuartierLatin1968 Image:Flag of Anarcho syndicalism.svg 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Small point

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. QuartierLatin1968 19:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

[edit] Some POV problems

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)

[edit] Propaganda

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)

[edit] Bolshevik criticism of Rosa Luxemburg

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

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)