SigPhiSigPhi

Rosa Luxemburg Riot and Revolution (1906)

Rosa Luxemburg

Language:
English
Status:
Complete work
Authorship:
Written by the author
Condition of the text:
No scanning noise detected (automatic measure over the whole text, not checked by hand)
Extent:
~2,950 words · 14 passages
Cite this work
  • APARosa Luxemburg. (n.d.). Rosa Luxemburg Riot and Revolution (1906). Digital reproduction: SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/en/works/rosa-luxemburg/rosa-luxemburg-riot-and-revolution-1906
  • MLARosa Luxemburg. Rosa Luxemburg Riot and Revolution (1906). Digital reproduction, SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/en/works/rosa-luxemburg/rosa-luxemburg-riot-and-revolution-1906.
  • ChicagoRosa Luxemburg. Rosa Luxemburg Riot and Revolution (1906). Digital reproduction, SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/en/works/rosa-luxemburg/rosa-luxemburg-riot-and-revolution-1906.

Reference to the edition that SigPhi reproduces: SigPhi is its digital reproduction, not its publisher. The edition's year is not in the metadata (hence "n.d."), and the translator appears only when recorded.

What it is about

Riot and Revolution (1906): the difference between a spontaneous outburst and a revolutionary process.

Context and history

It complements The Mass Strike: Luxemburg did not idealise spontaneity, she wanted to understand it. English translation from the Marxists Internet Archive. The original is German — or Polish, depending on the piece; for citation, the original. This is an article or a congress speech, not a book: its size in the catalogue is the size of the actual piece.

Editorial context, not a citable source: unlike the passages of the work itself, these statements cannot be checked against the corpus.

How it begins
“After Bebel had spoken at the Party Congress in favour of the General Strike, other speakers, who took part in the discussion, expressed disapproval of such means, as the General Strike could lead to a physical force revolution, at which the workers may be defeated. Then followed the accused, who derided and sneered at these objections, more especially as they were living in the year of the ‘glorious Russian revolution’. She said: ‘we should be fools if that would be no lesson to us’, and she emphasised the fact that in Germany we had also arrived at that point where Evolution must give way to Revolution. Respecting her comrade, Heine, she stated he was not in touch with the masses who, as history proves, had always shed their blood for the exploiting class; and she thought they may once shed their blood for their own class. These are the main points of the speech, which dealt less with the General Strike than with the Revolution. In fact the accused mentioned only now and then the General Strike, in order to be able to talk about the principal point, viz., the Revolution. In that way the incitement to the use of physical force was thrown out to the masses who were confused already, and the sanguinary seriousness of the speech was crowned by a quotation from the Communist Manifesto that the workers have nothing to lose but their chains. The accused desires that the object of the Socialist Party should not be attained by parliamentary means or by means of the General Strike, but by a physical force revolution; and the speech was made to incite the masses to break their chains. It was to happen in our country just as in Russia. All this amounts to an incitement to the use of physical force.…

Read the full work →

← Back to Rosa Luxemburg