¹ There are, certainly, other theorists, for example, Kautsky and Trotsky, who made important contributions to the debates within Social Democracy at the turn of the century. These three theorists have been selected because they illustrate clearly the dilemmas involved in, and alternatives available for, defining class consciousness within the Marxist tradition.

² Netti, Peter, “The German Social Democratic Party,” Past and Present, 30 (1965), 67.Google Scholar

³ Gay, Peter, The Dilemma of Democratic Socialism (New York, 1952), p. 99.Google Scholar

⁴ See Waldman, Eric, The Spartacist Uprising (Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1958).Google Scholar

⁵ Nettl, , “German Social Democratic Party,”Google Scholar argues that the position of the SPD, which he classifies as an “inheritor party” because it expected to inherit power from the existing regime, becomes impossible in the long run “if the inheritance will not mature. A state of isolation cannot be indefinitely maintained. Either it will lead to violence or success … [or] disintegration … [or the] gradual acceptance of the role of a pressure group like others such, competing for rewards instead of inheriting them.” See Nettl, , “The German Social Democratic Party” (p. 86)Google Scholar. For further discussion of the “great schism” see Schorske, Carl, German Social Democracy, 1905–1917 (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1955).Google Scholar

⁶ See Fischer, Louis, The Life of Lenin (New York, 1964), pp. 302–320.Google Scholar

⁷ Luxemburg's biographer J.P. Netti emphasizes the independence of her thought while also likening her theoretical position to that of the early Marx: “There is a fairly obvious connection in emphasis between Rosa Luxemburg's individualistic, creative Marxism as experienced in terms of struggle and friction, and Marx's concern in his early writings with alienation and with the subjective need for revolution. Both lived in an era when revolution was necessary; both were concerned with showing the intolerable nature of the society which was to be overthrown” (see Netti, J. P., Rosa Luxemburg, abridged edition [London, 1969], p. vii.)Google Scholar

⁸ Bernstein, Eduard, Evolutionary Socialism (New York, 1961), p. xxx.Google Scholar

⁹ See Frolich, Paul, Rosa Luxemburg: Ideas in Action (London, 1972), p. 59Google Scholar, passim, for a discussion of this point. For further discussion of Luxemburg's thought, particularly in relation to that of Bernstein and Lenin, see Arendt, Hannah, Men in Dark Times (New York, 1955)Google Scholar; Basso, Lelio, “Rosa Luxemburg: The Dialectical Method,” International Socialist Journal, no. 16–17 (01 1966), 504–541Google Scholar; Basso, Lelio, Rosa Luxemburg: A Reappraisal (New York, 1975)Google Scholar; Cliff, Tony, Rosa Luxemburg (London, 1959)Google Scholar; Geras, Norman, “Rosa Luxemburg, Barbarism, and the Collapse of Capitalism,” New Left Review, no. 82 (1974), 17–38Google Scholar; Lee, George, “Rosa Luxemburg and the Impact of Imperialism,” Economic Journal (12 1971), pp. 847–862Google Scholar; Lichtheim, George, “Rosa Luxemburg,” Encounter, 26 (06 1966), 55–60Google Scholar; Schlesinger, Rudolf, “Marxism Without an Organizing Party: Personal Observations on Luxemburg's Work,” Soviet Studies, 18 (10 1966), 225–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Rosa Luxemburg, quoted in Frolich, , Rosa Luxemburg: Ideas in Action, p. 62.Google Scholar

¹¹ Luxemburg, , Rosa Luxemburg Speaks, ed. Waters, Mary Alice (New York, 1970), pp. 77–78.Google Scholar

¹² Ibid., p. 57.

¹³ Ibid., p. 65.

¹⁴ Bernstein, quoted in Gay, Peter, Dilemma of Democratic Socialism, p. 203.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Bernstein, , Evolutionary Socialism, pp. xxv; 103.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Other commentators on socialist revisionism have noted that this aspect of Bernstein's thought divorced him altogether from the Marxist position, despite his claims to the contrary. See, for example, Basso, Lelio, “Rosa Luxemburg: The Dialectical Method,” p. 510Google Scholar. George Lichtheim further notes that Bernstein's position is closer to that of John Stuart Mill than to Marx: “Bernstein's critique of Marx amounted to saying that the freedom available to men under present-day conditions was already sufficient to enable them to decide their future. If he was right, the gradual establishment of socialism signified no more than a broadening of the area of freedom already established under liberal democracy. This of course was precisely what Mill had believed to be true; and it was precisely what Marx had regarded as nonsense” (see Lichtheim, George, Marxism: An Historical and Critical Study [New York, 1961], p. 296).Google Scholar

For further discussion of Bernstein's thought and his relation to orthodox Marxism, see Lukács, George, History and Class Consciousness (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1968)Google Scholar; Elliott, Charles F., “Quis Custodiet Sacra? Problems of Marxist Revisionism,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 28 (1967), 71–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kleene, G. A., “Bernstein vs. ‘Old-School’ Marxism,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 18 (1901), 391–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁷ Bernstein, , Evolutionary Socialism, p. 163.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Bernstein, quoted in Gay, Peter, Dilemma of Democratic Socialism, p. 131.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Luxemburg, , Rosa Luxemburg Speaks, p. 107.Google Scholar

²⁰ Luxemburg, quoted in Frolich, , Rosa Luxemburg: Ideas in Action, p. 85.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid., p. 86.

²² Lenin, V. I., The Lenin Anthology, ed. Tucker, Robert (New York, 1975), p. 19.Google Scholar

²³ Luxemburg, , Rosa Luxemburg Speaks, p. 123.Google Scholar

²⁴ Lenin, V. I., Essential Works of Lenin, ed. Christman, Henry M. (New York, 1966), pp. 104–105.Google Scholar

²⁵ Ibid., p. 74.

²⁶ Nettl, , Rosa Luxemburg, p. 290.Google Scholar

²⁷ Luxemburg, , Rosa Luxemburg Speaks, p. 118.Google Scholar

²⁸ Luxemburg, , Selected Political Writings, ed. Howard, Dick (New York, 1971), p. 304.Google Scholar

²⁹ Luxemburg, , Rosa Luxemburg Speaks, p. 95.Google Scholar

³⁰ Dick Howard notes in his commentary on Luxemburg that she echoes Hegel here in her insistence that “The final goal is the totality of the process by which it is achieved, it is not a state but a becoming” (see Luxemburg, , Selected Political Writings, p. 13).Google Scholar

³¹ Luxemburg, quoted in Basso, Lelio, “Rosa Luxemburg: The Dialectical Method,” p. 513.Google Scholar

³² Accordingly, those modern Marxists such as Lukács who exempt Lenin from any tie to “Stalinist excesses” have neglected this element of Lenin's position. The logic of Lenin's argument leads directly to a justification of Stalin's actions, if not to the tactics themselves. For Lukács's argument see History and Class Consciousness; for further discussion of this point see Levine, Norman, “Lukács on Lenin,” Studies in Soviet Thought, 18 (02 1978), 17–31.Google Scholar

³³ Thus Nettl concludes that “hers was an essentially moral doctrine which saw in social revolution — and socialist revolutionary activity — not merely the fulfillment of the laws of democratic materialism but the liberation and progress of humanity” (Rosa Luxemburg, p. xii).Google Scholar

³⁴ See Elliott, Charles F., “Quis Custodiet Sacra? Problems of Marxist Revisionism,”Google Scholar for a brief but insightful discussion of the problems posed for Marxism by a nonrevolutionary proletariat.

³⁵ Luxemburg, , The Accumulation of Capital (New Haven, 1951).Google Scholar

³⁶ Luxemburg, , The Mass Strike, The Political Parties, and The Trade Unions and The Junius Pamphlet (New York, 1971), p. 110.Google Scholar

³⁷ Lenin, , Essential Works of Lenin, p. 104.Google Scholar

³⁸ Meyer, Alfred G., Leninism (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1957), p. 55CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For further discussion of Lenin's ideas, particularly in relation to German Social Democracy, see Moore, Stanley, “Marx and Lenin as Historical Materialists,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 4 (Winter 1975), 171–94Google Scholar; Held, Walter, “The German Left and Bolshevism,” New International, 5 (02 1939)Google Scholar; Schurer, H., “Some Reflections on Rosa Luxemburg and the Bolshevik Revolution,” Slavonic and East European Review, 40 (06 1962), 356–72Google Scholar; Nicholls, A. J., “Rosa Luxemburg and Lenin,” History, 51 (10 1966), 331–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shachtman, Max, “Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg,” New International, 2 (03 1935).Google Scholar

³⁹ Kyle Wallace argues persuasively that dialectics, seen both as an empirical description of the world and an analytical conceptualization of it, is the cornerstone of both Marxism and Leninism: “Materialist dialectics involves a theory of the general movement and development of contradictions which take place in both nature and society, and is reflected in human thought” (“Dialectical Materialism and the Problem of Knowledge,” Journal of Critical Analysis, 2 [10 1970] 23–35).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Lenin, quoted in Meyer, , Leninism, p. 75.Google Scholar