Luxemburg Puns

Looking for a female Marxist (historical)? Disappointed in Rosa Luxemburg? Consider Clara Zetkin instead.

I think that anybody who wishes to "dig" a female Marxist from the Second International era should seriously consider Clara Zetkin instead. Unlike Luxemburg, she did not go over into the sectarian Social Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania (SDKPiL).

She also had a thing or two to say about bourgeois feminism:

> The working women, who aspire to social equality, expect nothing for their emancipation from the bourgeois women’s movement, which allegedly fights for the rights of women. That edifice is built on sand and has no real basis. Working women are absolutely convinced that the question of the emancipation of women is not an isolated question which exists in itself, but part of the great social question. They realize perfectly clear that this question can never be solved in contemporary society, but only after a complete social transformation.

While she could not have foreseen the Sexual Revolution, she did fight against the housewife phenomenon.

So, I managed to form the German Empire by 1852, which was a feat in and of itself, but I made sure to keep Luxemburg sphered so that I can annex it when I form Germany, as when I played HFM, when you form Germany, if Luxemburg is sphered you just annex them. However, that wasn't the case with GFM. I got the event to press my claim on Limburg if I wanted to when I formed the NGF, so I'm sure annexing Luxemburg is a possibility, but I'm not sure how to do it. I haven't played since I formed Germany, since I was shocked that I didn't annex Luxemburg immediately. Do I just need to wait? What do I need to do? Thank you!

1. Luxemburg says “What this or any other party considers a ‘class interest’ of the proletariat can only be an imputed interest, concocted by subjective reasonings.” (pg. 149) I agree; so then how do we make a determination on what forms of nationalism may be progressive insofar as they advance the struggle of the proletariat? How can we practically balance the popular desires for national-cultural expression (holidays, linguistic expressions, education) with the necessity of proletarian unity?
2. Luxemburg is unwavering in her commitment to proletarian internationalism. One on hand, this position is indispensable to the global class struggle. But I fear Luxemburg underestimates the primacy of the nation-state as modernity's primary form of socio-political organization. The 'nation' is far more than a simple form of 'false consciousness'. Rather, the modern nation-state, as Luxemburg acknowledges, is an objective historical development; the territorialized monopoly on legitimate violence. To quote Stalin, "A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture". We can revert back to the assertion that we must utilize a historical-material analysis of current conditions in order make a determination on the national question, but what does this mean? In short, how can class consciousness overcome national consciousness?
3. This lends itself towards my next question; uneven development is an absolute law of capitalism, and it is not limited to international trade; as Luxemburg notes, uneven development was the ultimate cause of the American civil war; an industrializing Northern bourgeoisie (which favored political centralism) and a Southern planter class (favoring a degree of particularism) competing of political and economic influence in the face of Westward expansion. Of course, this was an intra-class struggle between the Northern and Southern bourgeoisie, but I think this historical episode does raise the important question of how to address the different socioeconomic conditions between town and country if we are to favor political centralization? (If this particular example seems out of place, i got a little lost trying to formulate my core question).

Perhaps more relevant to our discussion here is the Georgian Affair. **Can we say Stalin was correct in the forcible Sovietization of the Caucasus, or wa

Looking for a female Marxist (historical)? Disappointed in Rosa Luxemburg? Consider Clara Zetkin instead.

I think that anybody who wishes to "dig" a female Marxist from the Second International era should seriously consider Clara Zetkin instead. Unlike Luxemburg, she did not go over into the sectarian Social Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania (SDKPiL).

She also had a thing or two to say about bourgeois feminism:

> The working women, who aspire to social equality, expect nothing for their emancipation from the bourgeois women’s movement, which allegedly fights for the rights of women. That edifice is built on sand and has no real basis. Working women are absolutely convinced that the question of the emancipation of women is not an isolated question which exists in itself, but part of the great social question. They realize perfectly clear that this question can never be solved in contemporary society, but only after a complete social transformation.

While she could not have foreseen the Sexual Revolution, she did fight against the housewife phenomenon.

1. Luxemburg says “What this or any other party considers a ‘class interest’ of the proletariat can only be an imputed interest, concocted by subjective reasonings.” (pg. 149) I agree; so then how do we make a determination on what forms of nationalism may be progressive insofar as they advance the struggle of the proletariat? How can we practically balance the popular desires for national-cultural expression (holidays, linguistic expressions, education) with the necessity of proletarian unity?

2. Luxemburg is unwavering in her commitment to proletarian internationalism. One on hand, this position is indispensable to the global class struggle. But I fear Luxemburg underestimates the primacy of the nation-state as modernity's primary form of socio-political organization. The 'nation' is far more than a simple form of 'false consciousness'. Rather, the modern nation-state, as Luxemburg acknowledges, is an objective historical development; the territorialized monopoly on legitimate violence. To quote Stalin, "A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture". We can revert back to the assertion that we must utilize a historical-material analysis of current conditions in order make a determination on the national question, but what does this mean? In short, how can class consciousness overcome national consciousness?

3. This lends itself towards my next question; uneven development is an absolute law of capitalism, and it is not limited to international trade; as Luxemburg notes, uneven development was the ultimate cause of the American civil war; an industrializing Northern bourgeoisie (which favored political centralism) and a Southern planter class (favoring a degree of particularism) competing of political and economic influence in the face of Westward expansion. Of course, this was an intra-class struggle between the Northern and Southern bourgeoisie, but I think this historical episode does raise the important question of how to address the different socioeconomic conditions between town and country if we are to favor political centralization? (If this particular example seems out of place, i got a little lost trying to formulate my core question)

Perhaps more relevant to our discussion here is the Georgian Affair. Can we say Stalin was correct in the forcible Sovietization of the Caucasus, or was this the i