Sometimes that something doesn't matter to you is equivalent to denial.

I remember Jean Baudrillard writing an article "The Gulf War did not take place". Of course, the war actually was the most conventional war that the US armed forces built up during the Cold War and especially during the Reagan era then ended up fighting before the "Peace dividend" cut backs started to have an effect in the later 90's.

So instead of having later just the Soviet Union and Red China we would have earlier a Soviet Germany and Soviet Russia? — ssu

This is all historical speculation, but I think that council communism could've turned out a lot better than the Soviet experiment. I come from a particular set of factions within the libertarian Left, none of whom have ever been in a position of power. It's easy for a libertarian communist, Autonomist, Communization theorist, Anarchist, or libertarian socialist to say that, comparatively, they have an immaculate human rights record because of that they have never been given the opportunity to vitiate it. Of council communism, most people tend to either given them the benefit of the doubt or to be fairly cynical. You can either see it as having been a considerably less authoritarian alternative to Bolshevism or kind of a sectarian distancing from it that paradoxically somewhat fanatically puts forth effectively the same praxis, as, if you ask any Trotskyite about council communism, they will tell you that it is just a rehash of workers' soviets.

I think that Rosa Luxemburg was relatively free of any implicit authoritarianism or intransigence, though, and, so, am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. She's often cited with the quote, "Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.", which is from a critique that she wrote of Lenin's authoritarian nature leading up to and during the October Revolution.

A good question is if the Soviet Union would have been able to exist without Stalin. The standard leftist narrative is that it was great when Lenin was in charge, but unfortunately then Stalin took power. Yet it might be that it was Stalin the Soviet system needed. Or Mao in the case of China. — ssu

Within the Left, there is a definite problem with the aura that Lenin retains. Many are all too likely to excuse, rationalize, justify, defend, or even celebrate the taking and abuse of power on the part of the Bolsheviks leading up to the October Revolution and through the Russian Civil War. When people assess the Leninist legacy, however, they often forget about one of the more infamous absurdities of the Marxist-Leninist regime, being what happened to the Old Bolsheviks. Though I, too, am of the opinion that Lenin did lay the rudiments for Stalin to secure power as such, I don't necessarily agree with Solzhenitsyn in that Marxism-Leninism was effectively just a continuation of the theory and practice of Vladimir Lenin. Of the first People's Commissariat, only two members would survive the Great Terror, none without losing an immediate relative. The Moscow Show Trials are indicative of that Stalin's regime does mark a point of departure from the October Revolution and subsequent Russian Civil War.

As to your question as to whether the Soviet Union could even have existed without Stalin, I, myself have pondered this as well. A continuation of Lenin's New Economic Policy seems like it would have eventually resulted in the abandonment of the Communist project and establishment of some form of Social Democracy. Stalin's forced Collectivization resulted in political, economic, and humanitarian catastrophe. When people all too readily dismiss that "Communism does not work in practice", they often fail to take this into account.

To offer some speculative history, however, had there only been a February Revolution, I do think that there could have been a pluralist Socialist country which people today would find to have been somewhat exemplary.

But aside from matters of taste, of which it's said there can be no dispute, I think that as a narrative or rhetorical device it's as Tom Storm suggests--intricate and confusing. — Ciceronianus the White

It's funny to me that people often find what I say to be perplexing as I make such a deliberate attempt to be explicitly clear.

So, what Luxemburg is saying is that land must to be taken over by the “nation” which is actually the state which is the government which is the Socialist Party which is (ideally) run by people like Luxemburg herself ....

Obviously, most Germans - and most people in their right mind - would object to that. — Apollodorus

I am willing to admit that Rosa Luxemburg may not have been ideologically pure, but I don't think that you are giving her enough credit to pick out one particular quote so as to cast her lot in with the likes of Nikolai Bukharin, who, in The ABC of Communism compares "communist society" to a collective storehouse where anyone can go to just take whatever they want to.

I also think that you fail to understand that Communism was extraordinarily appealing to many people in the Nineteenth Century. There were many revolts, uprisings, revolutions, and regime changes then and it was quite often the case that the old aristocratic order somehow either remained in power or was incorporated within whatever Liberal democracy in such a manner that their power was still somehow in effect, and, so, I think that there was a general sentiment that, if people didn't want to wait three-hundred years to be liberated from the old order, they should just simply overthrow them in a revolution. There's also that Marx's insistence upon the primacy of class probably rang true for a lot of people living through the Industrial Revolution. Though I don't agree with Marx, I can see how just about any German citizen would be inspired by The Communist Manifesto, especially given the dormant Fascist sentiment of the reactionary ruling class. It's easy to characterize an attempt at revolution as just simply having been "mad" when you don't live in a time where martial law can be declared at more or less the whims of the ruling class.

Given that Socialists felt like their common existence was at stake and had good reason to suspect that reform was going to take longer than they were going to live for, the revolutionary stance of the KPD, regardless as to whether it was either strategic or ethical, does make sense.

I also think that you fail to understand that Communism was extraordinarily appealing to many people in the Nineteenth Century. — thewonder

Nineteenth Century? We're talking about the 1900s here, i.e. Twentieth Century, when Communists in Germany only mustered 10% of the vote.

Jean Baudrillard writing an article "The Gulf War did not take place". — ssu

That's true but he didn't mean this as a literal statement. He took the line from a French play - The Trojan War Did Not Take Place (Giraudoux). B did believed the war took place but wanted to contrast the gap between how the war was depicted and what happened. Was it in fact a 'war'?

Given that Socialists felt like their common existence was at stake and had good reason to suspect that reform was going to take longer than they were going to live for, the revolutionary stance of the KPD, regardless as to whether it was either strategic or ethical, does make sense. — thewonder

By the same logic, the SPD's opposition to the Communists does make sense and it can't be called "betrayal". Unless you're advocating Communism, i.e., in this case, the rule of a Communist minority over a non-Communist majority?

Nineteenth Century? We're talking about the 1900s here, i.e. Twentieth Century, when Communists in Germany only mustered 10% of the vote. — Apollodorus

Less than twenty years into the 1900s. The Communist Manifesto was first published in 1848. I don't think that it's a stretch to suggest that it did take enough of a hold for such sentiments to still exist in 1919.

By the same logic, the SPD's opposition to the Communists does make sense and it can't be called "betrayal". Unless you're advocating Communism, i.e., in this case, the rule of a Communist minority over a non-Communist majority? — Apollodorus

That the SPD was necessarily opposed to that the KPD boycotted the elections obviously makes sense. What I was suggesting is that their deployment and association with reactionaries in the German military was both a strategic and ethical mistake. It did effectively crush the uprising, but at what cost?

The Bolsheviks are called as such because of that Lenin gained a majority at a congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party after a number of Mensheviks who supported Julus Martov walked out. It doesn't quite translate well into English, but Bolshevik means "majoritarian". It's somewhat ironic that they have been called as such, as they only gained the support of the majority of the Russian populace after the October Revolution, leading up to and during the Russian Civil War.

You are correct to assume that it is a problem for a political faction to attempt to secure power without the support of the general populace. By that account, I don't think that I would say that I would have supported the KPD's boycott of the elections. There are similarities and dissimilarities between them and the Bolsheviks, however.

Upon the SPD enlisting the aid of the German military in crushing the Spartacist Revolt, I also would not have supported the SPD. Upon them doing so, I would feel so inclined to be sympathetic towards the KPD, despite my not having agreed with their boycott of the elections in the first place.

Before the Spartacist Uprising, the KPD and the SPD collaborated with one another in the attempt to establish a Socialist Germany. One of the more apparent opponents of theirs was the German military. When a party within an alliance enlists the aid of their enemies in their violent suppression, that is a betrayal. You can say that the KPD drew the line in the sand if you like, but the SPD were the ones to cross it.

Less than twenty years into the 1900s. The Communist Manifesto was first published in 1848. I don't think that it's a stretch to suggest that it did take enough of a hold for such sentiments to still exist in 1919. — thewonder

What do you mean??? Engels in the Introduction openly admits that the Manifesto had no influence. Most copies were seized by the police and very few were actually read by anyone. Nobody cared about Marx and Engels' Communist revolution except a very small radical faction that as admitted by Engels was not enough for a revolution or even uprising. Maybe a small riot at the most.

The "sentiments" you're talking about were 10% of the population at the time of Luxemburg. So, on one hand you're allegedly against totalitarianism, and on the other hand you're for rule by a small minority with which the vast majority disagrees.

In the federal elections of 1871 the Social Democratic Workers’ Party led by Karl Liebknecht (Marx’s ally and collaborator in the International) received only 3.2% of the vote.

The Communists were a small fraction of that and Marx and Engels' group a small fraction of that small fraction. Maybe a few hundred people in total.

I would like to say that there were instances of both the SPD and the KPD collaborating with the Nazis in their respective quests to destroy one another, and, so, there is no reason to pass the blame, here, as they were both just kind of historically reprehensible.

I have made a very conscious attempt to be understanding of your point of contention as I am well aware of that this is a highly charged talking point of the far-Left. Though I, myself, am of the far-Left, what I do understand of it is that populated by kind of a lot of fanatics. When it comes to fanatics and their talking points, other people often refuse to listen to a single word that they say, and understandably so.

Being said, I was called to an awareness of the details of this event by the professor of a class that I took on Communism. He grew up in West Germany and, while he did not state his personal political affiliation, it did seem to be very likely to me that he was either a member of or sympathetic towards the SPD. As his response to the question that a young student posed in a discussion about revolution in regards to what to do when people in positions of power deal with others unjustly was "You can always just vote them out.", I do think that it would be safe to assume that he is either a Liberal or Social Democrat. He taught a very good class on Communism from a variety of different perspectives and sources. In said class, this event was portrayed more or less in the exact same manner that I have described it. The KPD boycotted the elections after losing them and the SPD, in turn, betrayed them by the German military, thereby establishing the alliance that would lead to the collapse of the Weimar Republic. That understanding of the event, to my estimation, is well known, understood, and accepted.

Should that anecdote not suffice, what I have been avoiding pointing out here is that the claim to the contrary that the KPD posed enough of a threat to warrant their violent suppression by an extraordinarily, in no misuse of this term, reactionary military was justified, despite that doing so did put the very people in power who would later allow for the establishment of the Third Reich, is, for lack of a better term, revisionist and borderlines on denial.

I am not making the claim that the KPD had a right to boycott the elections. I am merely pointing out that they had their reasons for doing so. What I am emphatically trying to get across, however, is that the SPD enlisting the aid of the German military in order to suppress the Spartacist Revolt was just simply unjustified, which, in retrospect, to any person with any degree of political conviction, ought to be just simply cogent.

Liebknecht was an ally of the late Marx, who effectively advanced both revolution and Liberal reform.

The "sentiments" you're talking about were 10% of the population at the time of Luxemburg. So, on one hand you're allegedly against totalitarianism, and on the other hand you're for rule by a small minority with which the vast majority disagrees. — Apollodorus

What I have repeatedly stated is that I don't really agree with them boycotting the elections but felt vaguely sympathetic towards them after they were betrayed. I don't think that that is an unreasonable way to feel about this.

Though I, myself, am of the far-Left, what I do understand of it is that populated by kind of a lot of fanatics. When it comes to fanatics and their talking points, other people often refuse to listen to a single word that they say, and understandably so. — thewonder

Well, I think it was quite obvious that you're of the far-Left and usually the far-Left is associated with extremists and fanatics.

But I wasn't refusing to listen to you at all. A (normal) forum is for people to communicate and exchange views. I was just trying to understand what you're actually saying since your statements seem self-contradictory and your facts are wrong too: twentieth century is "nineteenth century", rule by a small totalitarian minority is "not totalitarianism", etc. ...

The seminal Communist text was written in the mid-1800s, i.e., the Nineteenth Century, and we were talking about sentiments within the same country that it was published around seventy years later. As there was a revolution in Russia around the same period of time, I would suspect that being a Communist was common enough for most people to have met one.

You began this debate by defending the SPD's enlisting the aid of the German military in order to quell the January Uprising. I pointed out that their doing so resulted in that the Nazis were capable of taking power because I don't think that it was defensible. If were going to level ad hominem attacks, I don't what you call rewriting the history of the Weimar Republic so as to suit your political agenda other than totalitarian. Well, "Fascist", perhaps?

I, myself, am not a historian, and, so, make no claim to really know what the general mindset of the German military was following the end of the First World War. To speculate, I'd guess that an odd mixture of post-war resentment, an instilled longing for the ostensive security of the aristocracy, popular nationalist vanities and prejudices, and the vague self-interested supposition that the rule of law could be suspended in their vying for power had culminated in an ethos that you could describe as having been "Fascist". As they would later provide the Nazi party with the support with which it needed to take power, it would seem that such a description would be most apt.

What I am discounting is that the Spartacists were like the Bolsheviks. What I have conceded is that they didn't really have a right to boycott the elections. What I flat out refuse to accept is that collaborating with Fascists is justifiable within any given political situation. I don't think that it reflects poorly upon my character to have drawn those conclusions from this discussion.

What I am suggesting is that there needs to be a "third camp". — thewonder

I enjoyed what you've written. It seems to me your "third camp" is an attempt to find a way to take some of the energy out of the clash of left wing and right wing political beliefs that is playing out in the US now. That's a good thing. You are much more well read in political philosophy and history than I am, so, unfortunately, I don't really have anything to offer on the substance of your post.

A suggestion - use shorter paragraphs. It will make it easier to read. I tend to stay away from posts with long paragraphs. I'm glad I didn't on this one.

Why, thank you! I usually assume for everyone here to just simply be vexed by what I have to say about anything, which is probably my fault, really.

I have been known to be habitually voluble, which is something that I've been working on, but only over goes so well.

Well, when Communists got into power, they tended to hang the Social Democrats, so... And in the 30's the Soviet Union and Comintern labeled SPD "social fascists" and saw them as a bigger threat than the Nazis. Now that was a classic stab in the back.

Though Noske was an unfortunate choice to go to Kiel and onwards to history.

Right, but what I am saying is that where the thought-terminating cliché, "social fascists", stems from is this historical event. I have, perhaps, elaborated upon this to a point and intensity of excess, but my claim that, though they may present much of this information in either misleading manners or with some sort of call to action or another, the information that any number of Communists will share with you about it is true is true.

I used to be friends with a number of Trotskyites on Facebook. On a near bi-weekly basis, they would something or another about this event. I never really read the articles because I understood that their sharing them was just kind of a way for them to put forth that only the political praxis proceeding from Hal Draper, who, also, as chance would have it, has also invoked the "third camp", was capable of changing the world for the better.

What I posit of these articles is that the information that they contain about the Social Democrats forming an alliance with high ranking officials in the German military who later facilitated the rise of the Nazi Party is that it is just true. I have provided anecdotal evidence from the class that I took on Communism at a university to support this claim. As both my History professor and the International Socialist Organization agree, it seems unlikely that I have been mistaken.

I was still typing. Nevermind.

And, well, the Spartakists had attacked and occupied the Vorwärts house - some sort of protofascist military headquarters? It's very obvious what would have happened to the moderate left if the Spartakists had won the day: liquidation of Social Democracy and their leaders executed or imprisoned. They were not clairvoyants and could not see to the 1930's. but were defending the new and fragile republican structures. And Communists certainly picked their moment for revenge in the early 30's, they stabbed the sanest and biggest party in the back while it was trying to hold the front against the Nazis.

And, well, the Spartakists had attacked and occupied the Vorwärts house - some sort of protofascist military headquarters? — hwyl

"On Sunday 5 January, as on 9 November 1918, hundreds of thousands of people poured into the centre of Berlin, many of them armed. In the afternoon the train stations and the newspaper district with the offices of the middle-class press and the SPD's "Vorwärts", which had been printing articles hostile to the Spartacists since the beginning of September, were occupied. Some of the middle-class papers in the previous days had called not only for the raising of more Freikorps but also for the murder of the Spartacists." - Wikipedia

Not proto-Fascist, but also not as if it were exemplary of the free press.

And Communists certainly picked their moment for revenge in the early 30's, they stabbed the sanest and biggest party in the back while it was trying to hold the front against the Nazis. — hwyl

What I am saying is that Spartacists under Luxemburg and Liebknecht differed from the latter KPD. I am not saying that the KPD was a better political party than the SPD.

"After the overthrow of William II in 1918, Hindenburg collaborated briefly with the new republican government. He directed the withdrawal of German forces from France and Belgium and had his staff organize the suppression of left-radical risings in Germany. With both tasks accomplished (and the old officer corps preserved in the process), he retired once more in June 1919. Living quietly in Hanover, he occasionally expressed antirepublican views but, on the whole, cultivated his image of a nonpartisan national hero." - Encyclopedia Britannica

This is only to my recollection of what I have picked up on all of this, but I vaguely recall there being a connection between the Junkers, Paul von Hindenburg, who later appointed Adolf Hitler as chancellor, a few high ranking military officials, and the SPD. I can't quite find what I'm looking for, but it seemed to be the case that, upon crushing the uprising, the SPD forged an alliance with some set of officials or another who would later contribute to the collapse of the Weimar Republic. It somehow went beyond the theory that the split within the Left left them without enough support to counter the Nazi Party.

I can't find it, though, and, so, perhaps, I stumbled upon a conspiracy theory, perhaps I have mixed-up the information, or perhaps its just the sort of thing that people don't discuss too often? I don't really know.

I have mixed up some of the information, but there is truth to this suspicion.

I was looking for the Ebert–Groener pact. I think that I remember our professor pointing out that there was a lot of speculation about the Riechswehr, which many have called a "state within a state".

It was Groener and Schleicher. Ebert formed a pact with Groener whose successor, in a succession of schemes to secure power himself, directly contributed to the collapse of the Weimar Republic. That's what I was thinking of.

So, they occupied the legendary mouthpiece of the SPD in a fit of absence of mind? They only meant to destroy the freedom of expression of the bourgeoisie? If they were not Communists yet, at least they were learning bloody quickly how to best undermine liberal democracy...

It's funny to me that people often find what I say to be perplexing as I make such a deliberate attempt to be explicitly clear. — thewonder

Since your own amusement seems a concern of yours, I'm happy to contribute to it.

As there was a revolution in Russia around the same period of time, I would suspect that being a Communist was common enough for most people to have met one. — thewonder

However, you can't extrapolate from this that Communists enjoyed the support of the majority. They didn't even have the support of the non-Communist Socialists, let alone the majority of the population.

Even in Russia, the Bolshevik revolution or coup was carried out by a small group of Marxist ideologists with the help of radicalized workers and elements of the military that had been exposed to systematic revolutionary propaganda.

As admitted by Luxemburg herself, the rural population, i.e. the vast majority of the population was less than impressed with Communism, which is why it was bribed with promises of "bread and land". These of course were false promises as the country descended into chaos and Lenin in 1921 was forced to introduce his New Economic Policy of "state capitalism".

Of course, Luxemburg was dead by then so she couldn't have known that Soviet Communism was a failure from the start.

But we are in 2021 now, we know what the facts are and we can't pretend otherwise.

In any case, I don't think your claim that Nazism could have been avoided by embracing Communism makes much sense. Or at least it doesn't follow from what you're saying.

The “third camp” should reject statism, collectivism, totalitarianism, and embrace freedom. Only then could they resist using human beings as the brick and mortar of their projects. Unfortunately this means their vision must come about voluntarily.

Luxemburg was critical of Lenin, though. I have already pointed this out in this thread.

I'm not saying that the KPD would've been all bread and roses; I'm just saying that they wouldn't have turned out like the Soviet Union.

Besides, the point that I am trying to get across is that making a secret deal with a state within a state is just simply duplicitous and that Social Democrats just simply ought to be willing to admit this, considering that their doing so directly contributed to the collapse of the Weimar Republic. There is one degree of separation between Ebert and Schleicher and it was common for Groener and Schleicher to collaborate before Schleicher betrayed him. Establishing the pact with the military reestasblished its role as a state within a state. Doing so directly contributed to the collapse of the Weimar Republic. I'm not saying that Social Democrats were somehow Fascists just because of this, as they, quite obviously were later banned by the Nazis. I am saying that allying themselves as such, in retrospect, seems to have been a clear mistake. Regardless as to what political party was preferable at the time, it'd seem ill-advised to suggest otherwise.

So, they occupied the legendary mouthpiece of the SPD in a fit of absence of mind? They only meant to destroy the freedom of expression of the bourgeoisie? If they were not Communists yet, at least they were learning bloody quickly how to best undermine liberal democracy... — hwyl

I don't understand what you mean. I think that you might have confused Groener and Schleicher with this thread's early mention of Ebert and Noske as I think you're going to be waging an uphill battle to try and prove that Kurt von Schleicher positively contributed to the German political legacy or that of the world at large.

The “third camp” should reject statism, collectivism, totalitarianism, and embrace freedom. Only then could they resist using human beings as the brick and mortar of their projects. Unfortunately this means their vision must come about voluntarily. — NOS4A2

My interpretation of what is invoked by "statism" and "collectivism" is more or less anagolous to the totalitarianism of the Soviet Union, but I think that you mean something else by it. You can feel free to elaborate upon this if you like, though, despite that I have primarily spoken of Communism, the invocation of the third camp would suggest to move away from the meta-narrative of the West as the triumph of Liberal democracy as well.

No, I just took issue of your sort of defence of the Spartakists and pointed out that they actually violently occupied the premises of the premier national newspaper of the SPD - which gave a very graphic idea how they viewed the SPD and Social Democracy: as enemies to attack with violence. And had they won, they would have obviously liquidated SPD and the Weimar Republic. So, I see the SPD response as perfectly rational, even though the military aid they asked fo was a poisoned chalice. They did not have better options left in the face of this revolutionary violence.

Oh, I see what you're saying.

Of the paper, you had levelled the charge as if it were akin to Lenin's ban on the press leading up to and during the Russian Civil War. What I was suggesting is that, by that the paper openly called for the murder of KPD members that the analogy didn't quite hold up.

Clearly it was rational. I have not disputed that. I'm saying that it was a strategic mistake, which I don't think can be denied, aside from that it was unethical.

It may have been you or someone else in this thread, but someone had said that they weren't clairvoyants in defense of the SPD, which may free them from the charge of proto-Fascism, but doesn't wholly absolve them of having allied themselves with a faction that they knew operated as a state within a state.

I, apparently, haven't looked too far into this as I just found this on the Wikipedia page for the uprising:

"Rosa Luxemburg drew up her founding programme and presented it on 31 December 1918. In this programme, she pointed out that the communists could never take power without the clear support of the majority of the people. On 1 January she again demanded that the KPD participate in the planned elections, but she was outvoted. The majority hoped to gain power by continued agitation in the factories and by "pressure from the streets"."

I have always associated the Spartacists with Luxemburg, whom I do hold in a certain regard, and, so, have been, in part, defending them by that account. She, apparently, even later came out against the revolt.

There's this as well:

"On 8 January, the KPD resigned from the Revolutionary Committee after USPD representatives invited Ebert for talks. While these talks were taking place, the workers discovered a flyer published by Vorwärts entitled "Die Stunde der Abrechnung naht!" (The hour of reckoning is coming soon!) and about the Freikorps (anti-Communist paramilitary organizations) being hired to suppress the workers. Ebert had ordered his defense minister, Gustav Noske, to do so on 6 January. When the talks broke off, the Spartacist League then called on its members to engage in armed combat."

I'm sure that the Spartacists would've used the talks to levy for power to be given to their councils, but, it does seem like some diplomatic options were available to the SPD. In the general course of the debate in this thread, it has been taken, by that I have been critical of what I have rediscovered was the Ebert-Groener Pact for a tacit support of nearly every aspect of the KPD, which is indicative, to me, of that the people engaged in it are only interested presenting the SPD as having been somehow infallible by characterizing any claims to the contrary by nascent Marxist-Leninist dogmatism. Outside of the historically tennous field of Political Philosophy and within that of History, I think that it's fairly well understood that the alliance that the SPD forged with German military officials led to the collapse of the Weimar Republic and was, therefore, a mistake, depending upon a person's political proclivities, to varying degrees of culpability. What seems to be a matter of debate is of the character of Friedrich Ebert. I am suggesting that he must have known that the military officials whom he allied himself with were just simply proto-Fascist and that he shouldn't be viewed favorably, which you can debate if you like. What doesn't seem debatable to me is as to whether or not effectively granting the person who engineered the decline of the Weimar Republic was a mistake, as it clearly was.