Uni Leipzig, Diss., 2007.

Zugl.: Potsdam, Universiẗat, Diss., 2009.

Zugl.: Leipzig, Univ., Diss., 2007

Traditionally, Rosa Luxemburg has not been understood as a feminist. In the beginnings of her socio-political career she did not align herself with feminism. However, as time progressed, Luxemburg became increasingly weary of male-chauvinistic ideals including Revisionism, opportunism, centralization, militarism, and war. Luxemburg's socio-political theories and her relationships with the women's movement led her to label herself as feminist. This thesis outlines and examines the claim that Luxemburg can be described and labeled a feminist.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:23:37Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2009-05-04Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T20:11:08Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 soares_sar_me_mar.pdf: 1016540 bytes, checksum: 5469a6caabfad7d6ec5b998f41713f1b (MD5) / A linha que guia toda teoria política de Rosa Luxemburg consiste na importância fundamental fornecida à ação autônoma e criadora das massas para uma efetiva superação da sociedade capitalista em todas as esferas. A proposta deste trabalho é discutir, por meio do núcleo de acontecimentos que permearam a vida política de Luxemburg - Bernstein-Debatte, a revolução russa de 1905, a explosão da I Guerra e a crise no movimento social-democrata, a Revolução Russa de 1917 e a criação dos soviets no movimento operário socialista internacional, juntamente com as experiências dos conselhos na Revolução Alemã de 1918-1919 - a concepção de autonomia das massas e sua importância no processo histórico levando em conta os elementos objetivos e subjetivos, a relação entre espontaneidade e organização. Pretende-se portanto destacar as propostas de estratégias políticas de Rosa Luxemburg para o fortalecimento revolucionário das organizações e instrumentos de luta próprios do proletariado, crescimento interligado à conscientização das massas, e para o desenvolvimento de embriões socialistas no interior da sociedade capitalista, que tomam forma através dos conselhos de operários e soldados. Estes produtos da experiência de luta de massa são a essência da concepção de organização democrática proletária defendida pela autora. / The line that guides all political theory of Rosa Luxemburg is the importance given to the autonomous and creative action of an effective mass to overcome the capitalist society in all spheres. The proposal of this study is to argue, through the core of events that permeated the political life of Luxemburg: Bernetein-Debatte, the Russian revolution of 1905, the eruption of the First War and the crisis of the social-democratic movement, the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the creation of soviets in the international socialist movement, along with the experiences of councils in the German Revolution of 1918-1919, the concept of autonomy of the masses and their importance in the historical process taking into account the objective and subjective elements, the relationship between spontaneity and organization. It is therefore proposed to highlight the political strategies of Luxemburg to the strengthening of the revolutionary organizations and the tools to fight the proletariat, growing awareness of the interconnected bodies, and the development of embryos within the socialist capitalist society, which take shape through the soviets and councils of workers and soldiers. These products from the experience of mass struggle is the essence of the conception of proletarian democratic organization supported by the author.

Typescript (photocopy). / Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries

No description available.

Democracy seems to be in crisis and scholars have started to consider the possibility that “the only game in town” might be rigged. This book theorizes the crisis of democracy from a structural point of view, arguing that liberal representative governments suffer from systemic corruption, a form of political decay that should be understood as the oligarchization of society, and proposes an anti-oligarchic institutional solution based on a radical interpretation of republican constitutional thought. If one agrees that the minimal normative expectation of liberal democracies is that governments should advance the welfare of the majority within constitutional safeguards, increasing income inequality and the relative immiseration of the majority of citizens would be in itself a deviation from good rule, a sign of corruption. As a way to understand how we could revert the current patterns of political corruption, the book provides an in-depth analysis of the institutional, procedural, and normative innovations to protect political liberty proposed by Niccolò Machiavelli, Nicolas de Condorcet, Rosa Luxemburg, and Hannah Arendt. Because their ideas to institutionalize popular power have consistently been misunderstood, instrumentalized, demonized, or neglected, part of what this project wants to accomplish is to offer a serious engagement with their proposals through a plebeian interpretative lens that renders them as part of the same intellectual tradition. In this way, the book assembles a “B side” of constitutional thought composed of the apparent misfits in a tradition that has been dominated by the impulse to suppress conflict instead of harnessing its liberty-producing properties. As a way to effectively deal with systemic corruption and oligarchic domination, the book proposes to follow this plebeian constitutionalism and instituionalize popular collective power. A proposed plebeian branch would be autonomous and aimed not at achieving self-government or direct democracy, but rather at an effort to both judge and censor elites who rule. The plebeian branch would consist of two institutions: a decentralized network of radically inclusive local assemblies, empowered to initiate and veto legislation as well as to exercise periodic constituent power, and a delegate, surveillance office able to enforce decisions and impeach public officials. The establishment of primary assemblies at the local level would not only allow ordinary people to push back against oligarchic domination through the political system but also inaugurate an institutional conception of the people as the many assembled locally: a political collective agent operating as a network of political judgment in permanent flow. The people as network would be a political subject with as many brains as assemblies, in which collective learning, reaction against domination, and social change would occur organically and independently from representative government and political parties.

From the time of its first publication, Rosa Luxemburg’s main economic work, The Accumulation of Capital, was heavily criticized. This set a precedent towards the dismissal of her economic theory which has continued almost to the present day. Very recently, however, a stream of literature favourable to Luxemburg has begun to emerge. Commentators in this group have attempted to re-evaluate Luxemburg’s contribution to Marxian economic theory by, among other approaches, attempting to show her as an important precursor to Michal Kalecki. This work operates within this framework. It attempts to further specify the nature of the theoretical relationship between Luxemburg and Kalecki by closely examining and comparing the economic theories of the two thinkers. What such a study reveals, however, is that this relationship is better defined as a one of rupture rather than of continuity. While Kalecki seems to accept the basic structure of Luxemburg’s argument, he modifies and qualifies it in so many respects as to make it almost unrecognizable. But such a divergence between the theories is hardly surprising if we view them in their proper historical contexts. The differing empirical, personal and political backgrounds from which the theories emerged is what would have led to the development of the divergent elements within them. Such substantial differences in the contexts which gave rise to the respective theories underscore the ill-advised nature of the attempt to draw too strong a link between the economic thought of Luxemburg and Kalecki. / Graduate

No description available.