From Finland's last monument of Lenin being removed to Egyptian excavators working at a tomb site, here are some impactful images from around the world on 04 October, 2022.

World in Pictures: Finland's last monument of Lenin removed; Egyptian excavators work at a tomb site

India is famous for its rich culture and diversity. A wedding in the southern part of the country was an amalgamation of the Communist Party.

Among the wedding guests of this unique wedding were Marx, Lenin, and Ho Chi Minh. Their friend Engels was tying the knot.

However, none of them are from Germany, Russia, or Vietnam as people would generally assume upon hearing those names.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/socialism-weds-mamata-banerjee-with-communism-leninism-and-marxism-as-special-guests-390813">Socialism weds Mamata Banerjee, with Communism, Leninism, and Marxism as special guests</a>

&nbsp;

As per the newspaper Mathrubhumi, while Engels and Lenin are brothers, Marx and Ho Chi Minh are the sons of a local party activist.

What they have in common is that they all are active members of the Communist Party.

A similar incident had taken place in June when Socialism married off in front of brothers Communism, Leninism, and Marxism.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-set-to-seal-3-billion-predator-drone-deal-with-us-by-current-fiscal-429862" hreflang="en">India set to seal $3 billion Predator drone deal with US by current fiscal</a>

The bride, called P. Mamata Banerjee, is also named after a female politician in the state of Western Bengal.

Interestingly, she is responsible for ending decades of communist rule in the state back in 2011.

Revolutionary names like Stalin and Trotsky popular are extremely popular in Southern India.

In the last six decades, the hammer and the sickle have ruled in the state of Kerala. This inclination towards the Soviet Union began during the Cold War.

(With inputs from agencies)

India is famous for its rich culture and diversity. A wedding in the southern part of the country was an amalgamation of the Communist Party. Among the wedding guests of this unique wedding were Marx, Lenin, and Ho Chi Minh.

India is famous for its rich culture and diversity. A wedding in the southern part of the country was an amalgamation of the Communist Party. Among the wedding guests of this unique wedding were Marx, Lenin, and Ho Chi Minh. Their friend Engels was tying the knot. However, none of them are from Germany, Russia, or Vietnam as people would generally assume upon hearing those names. Also read | Socialism weds Mamata Banerjee, with Communism, Leninism, and Marxism as special guests As per the newspaper Mathrubhumi, while Engels and Lenin are brothers, Marx and Ho Chi Minh are the sons of a local party activist. What they have in common is that they all are active members of the Communist Party. A similar incident had taken place in June when Socialism married off in front of brothers Communism, Leninism, and Marxism. Also read | India set to seal $3 billion Predator drone deal with US by current fiscal The bride, called P. Mamata Banerjee, is also named after a female politician in the state of Western Bengal. Interestingly, she is responsible for ending decades of communist rule in the state back in 2011. Revolutionary names like Stalin and Trotsky popular are extremely popular in Southern India. In the last six decades, the hammer and the sickle have ruled in the state of Kerala. This inclination towards the Soviet Union began during the Cold War. (With inputs from agencies)

This unique wedding in India had Marx and Lenin as guests

A statue of Dr BR Ambdekar was vandalised in Meerut on Tuesday.&nbsp;

The news agency ANI reported that the vandalism, by unidentified people, took place late last night in Meerut&#39;s Mawana.&nbsp;

ANI added that the Dalit community held a protest and blocked traffic Wednesday morning. They ended their protest only after assurance from the district administration that a new statue of Ambedkar would be installed.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Dr BR Ambedkar&#39;s statue vandalised by unidentified people in Meerut&#39;s Mawana late last night; Dalit community held protest &amp; blocked traffic in the morning, ended the protest after assurance from the administration of installation of new statue <a href="https://t.co/DAAcq6g5Wf">pic.twitter.com/DAAcq6g5Wf</a>
&mdash; ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANINewsUP/status/971305543720669184?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 7, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

India has recently found itself in the middle of a &quot;statue&quot; war.&nbsp;

Opinion: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/opinion-why-indians-are-waging-war-over-statues-of-lenin-periyar-shyamaprasad-34991" target="_blank">Why Indians are waging war over the statues of Lenin, Periyar, and Syama Prasad</a>

The desecration of statues started with the bringing down of a statue of Lenin in Tripura after the BJP won the recent state elelction. That was followed by the vandalism of a statue of Periyar in Tamil Nadu&#39;s Vellore last night. Police said a BJP and a CPI worker were arrested. The BJP has since expelled its party worker.&nbsp;

And this morning a statue of Jan Sangh (the predecessor of the BJP) leader Syama Prasad Mukherjee was vandalised in Kolkata&#39;s Jadavpur University.&nbsp;

The vandalism, by unidentified people, took place late last night in Meerut's Mawana

A statue of Dr BR Ambdekar was vandalised in Meerut on Tuesday. The news agency ANI reported that the vandalism, by unidentified people, took place late last night in Meerut's Mawana. ANI added that the Dalit community held a protest and blocked traffic Wednesday morning. They ended their protest only after assurance from the district administration that a new statue of Ambedkar would be installed. Dr BR Ambedkar's statue vandalised by unidentified people in Meerut's Mawana late last night; Dalit community held protest & blocked traffic in the morning, ended the protest after assurance from the administration of installation of new statue pic.twitter.com/DAAcq6g5Wf — ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) March 7, 2018 × India has recently found itself in the middle of a "statue" war. Opinion: Why Indians are waging war over the statues of Lenin, Periyar, and Syama Prasad The desecration of statues started with the bringing down of a statue of Lenin in Tripura after the BJP won the recent state elelction. That was followed by the vandalism of a statue of Periyar in Tamil Nadu's Vellore last night. Police said a BJP and a CPI worker were arrested. The BJP has since expelled its party worker. And this morning a statue of Jan Sangh (the predecessor of the BJP) leader Syama Prasad Mukherjee was vandalised in Kolkata's Jadavpur University.

Now, Ambedkar statue vandalised in Meerut

A day after a statue of EV Ramasamy &#39;Periyar&rsquo; was vandalised in Tamil Nadu and a few days after a statue of Lenin was bulldozed in Tripura, comes the news that a bust of Bharatiya Jana Sangh founder Shyama Prasad Mukherjee&rsquo;s has been vandalised in Kolkata&rsquo;s Kalighat.&nbsp;

Here have a look at who these people are:&nbsp;

Vladimir Lenin

Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, a Russian communist revolutionary better known by the name Lenin, was the head of government of Soviet Russia from 1917 to 1924 and of the Soviet Union from 1922 to 1924.&nbsp;

Lenin spent years leading up to the 1917 revolution in exile.

Russia, he presided over, was reeling from the bloody civil war, which followed the Russian Revolution.

Famine and poverty shaped much of society. In 1921, Lenin now faced the same kind of peasant uprising which marked his rise to power. Widespread strikes in cities and in rural sections of the country broke out, threatening the stability of Lenin&#39;s government.

To ease the tension, Lenin introduced the New Economic Policy, which allowed workers to sell their grain on the open market.

On March 10, 1923, he dealt with a severe stroke which snatched his ability to speak and, hence, terminated much of his political career.

Nearly 10 months later, on January 21, 1924, another stroke hit him, and he passed away that evening in the village now known as Gorki Leninskiye.

A controversial and highly political individual, Lenin is viewed by supporters as a champion of socialism and the working class, while critics on both the left and right emphasize his role as founder and leader of an authoritarian regime responsible for political repression and killing of the Czar family and &nbsp;his political opponents

 
Periyar EV Ramaswamy&nbsp;

Erode Venkata Ramasamy, commonly known as Periyar, was a social activist, and politician. He belonged to the Balijas social group from Andhra Pradesh.

Periyar joined the Indian National Congress in 1919 but resigned in 1925 when he felt that the party was only serving the interests of the Brahmins.

He propagated the principles of rationalism, self-respect, women&#39;s rights and eradication of caste and demanded separate country for Dravidians(South Indians).

Periyar is one of the key players for bringing cast based seat allocation in education and employment.

On 27 June 1970, he was awarded by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which was presented to him by the Union Education Minister, Triguna Sen in Madras.

In his last meeting at Thiagaraya Nagar, Chennai on 19 December 1973, Periyar declared a call for action to gain social equality and a dignified way of life.

On 24 December 1973, Periyar died at the age of 94.

Syama Prasad Mukherjee

Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, an Indian politician, barrister, and academician, served as the Minister for Industry and Supply in PM Jawaharlal Nehru&#39;s cabinet.

Mukherjee quit the Indian National Congress and founded the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS), a predecessor to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), in 1951.

The BJS was created with the objective of nation-building and &quot;nationalizing&quot; all non-Hindus by &quot;inculcating Bharatiya Culture&quot; in them.

He was strongly opposed to Article 370 (an article that gives autonomous status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir) seeing as a threat to the unity of the country and fought against it inside and outside the parliament with one of the goals of Bharatiya Jana Sangh being an abrogation of the article.&nbsp;

He once said &quot;Ek desh mein do Vidhan, do Pradhan aur Do Nishan nahi chalenge&quot;

Bharatiya Jana Sangh along with Hindu Mahasabha and Jammu Praja Parishad launched a massive Satyagraha to get the provisions of article 370 removed.

Mukherjee was arrested upon entering Kashmir on 11 May 1953.&nbsp;

He died in 1953 under mysterious circumstances.

Police in various parts of India now fear a rise in political violence; Tripura is already on the boil.

A day after a statue of EV Ramasamy 'Periyar’ was vandalised in Tamil Nadu and a few days after a statue of Lenin was bulldozed in Tripura, comes the news that a bust of Bharatiya Jana Sangh founder Shyama Prasad Mukherjee’s has been vandalised in Kolkata’s Kalighat. Here have a look at who these people are: Vladimir Lenin Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, a Russian communist revolutionary better known by the name Lenin, was the head of government of Soviet Russia from 1917 to 1924 and of the Soviet Union from 1922 to 1924. Lenin spent years leading up to the 1917 revolution in exile. Russia, he presided over, was reeling from the bloody civil war, which followed the Russian Revolution. Famine and poverty shaped much of society. In 1921, Lenin now faced the same kind of peasant uprising which marked his rise to power. Widespread strikes in cities and in rural sections of the country broke out, threatening the stability of Lenin's government. To ease the tension, Lenin introduced the New Economic Policy, which allowed workers to sell their grain on the open market. On March 10, 1923, he dealt with a severe stroke which snatched his ability to speak and, hence, terminated much of his political career. Nearly 10 months later, on January 21, 1924, another stroke hit him, and he passed away that evening in the village now known as Gorki Leninskiye. A controversial and highly political individual, Lenin is viewed by supporters as a champion of socialism and the working class, while critics on both the left and right emphasize his role as founder and leader of an authoritarian regime responsible for political repression and killing of the Czar family and his political opponents Periyar EV Ramaswamy Erode Venkata Ramasamy, commonly known as Periyar, was a social activist, and politician. He belonged to the Balijas social group from Andhra Pradesh. Periyar joined the Indian National Congress in 1919 but resigned in 1925 when he felt that the party was only serving the interests of the Brahmins. He propagated the principles of rationalism, self-respect, women's rights and eradication of caste and demanded separate country for Dravidians(South Indians). Periyar is one of the key players for bringing cast based seat allocation in education and employment. On 27 June 1970, he was awarded by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which was presented to him by the Union Education Minister, Triguna Sen in Madras. In his last meeting at Thiagaraya Nagar, Chennai on 19 December 1973, Periyar declared a call for action to gain social equality and a dignified way of life. On 24 December 1973, Periyar died at the age of 94. Syama Prasad Mukherjee Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, an Indian politician, barrister, and academician, served as the Minister for Industry and Supply in PM Jawaharlal Nehru's cabinet. Mukherjee quit the Indian National Congress and founded the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS), a predecessor to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), in 1951. The BJS was created with the objective of nation-building and "nationalizing" all non-Hindus by "inculcating Bharatiya Culture" in them. He was strongly opposed to Article 370 (an article that gives autonomous status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir) seeing as a threat to the unity of the country and fought against it inside and outside the parliament with one of the goals of Bharatiya Jana Sangh being an abrogation of the article. He once said "Ek desh mein do Vidhan, do Pradhan aur Do Nishan nahi chalenge" Bharatiya Jana Sangh along with Hindu Mahasabha and Jammu Praja Parishad launched a massive Satyagraha to get the provisions of article 370 removed. Mukherjee was arrested upon entering Kashmir on 11 May 1953. He died in 1953 under mysterious circumstances.

War of the statues: Who were Lenin, Periyar and SP Mukherjee?

Few episodes in history capture the imagination quite like the Russian Revolution of 1917, undeniably one of the most important episodes of modern history. But a century later, what does it really mean? After all, the Soviet state that emerged from 1917 no longer exists, and the Cold War is over. Does the revolution have any relevance today?

To judge by the flurry of interest in the centenary, a great deal. Historians and writers are in overdrive trying to convey what happened, how, and why, many focusing on the &ldquo;ordinary&rdquo; people involved and the extraordinarily talented artists who experienced, made and captured the revolution. That&rsquo;s certainly in the spirit of the thing; Lenin himself described revolutions as &ldquo;festivals of the oppressed and the exploited&rdquo;. But it&rsquo;s unwise to romanticise revolution in general, and the Russian Revolution in particular.

The course the Revolution took was determined above all by Lenin and his ruling Bolshevik party, often alongside &ldquo;the people&rdquo;, but often also by force against them. One of the most important questions to ask, then, is: what was the October Revolution actually for? Why did the Bolsheviks take power?

Their motive wasn&rsquo;t power for its own sake; it was communism. It was a vision of a society perfected, one in which people would live in complete social harmony. The essence of the October Revolution was a revolution in human culture and the creation of a &ldquo;new Soviet person&rdquo;, a better type of human without whom communism could not exist.

This was the most ambitious and sustained attempt at human transformation and liberation in modern European history &ndash; and yet the Soviet regime became the most violent state in modern peacetime Europe. This is the central contradiction of the Russian Revolution, and one of the great paradoxes of the 20th century.

To understand why it happened, and how the Soviet state was formed, it is essential to remember it all happened in the context of World War I. In fact, without the war, there would have been no October Revolution at all.

The tragedy of the revolution

A century ago, Europe was consumed by assorted crises of enormous magnitude. Four empires &ndash; Russian, Austro-Hungarian, German, and Ottoman &ndash; were collapsing, leaving behind what historians refer to as the &ldquo;shatter zones&rdquo; of empire in central, southern, and eastern Europe. The experiences of war, state failure, and military defeat opened up spaces for paramilitary violence, atrocities and extremist politics over the next three decades. This tendency was especially pronounced in Russia, in part because of the ideological fervour that the Bolsheviks added to the mix.

Lenin and his comrades were supremely theoretical politicians. They were not above opportunism and cunning, lies and brutality, but they were motivated more by a theoretical vision of a much better world than by self-interest. During the war, Lenin realised that because Marx had not lived through the age of imperialism, his thought was somewhat out of date. Imperialism, Lenin reasoned, was a new stage of capitalism. Imperial states had sought to conquer overseas colonies in order to exploit natural resources and cheap labour, and competition for colonies among the imperial states had inevitably culminated in catastrophic war.

The only solution for humanity, Lenin believed, would be socialist revolutions, with an end to warfare once and for all. The tragedy of the Russian Revolution is that the palpable sense of popular emancipation and empowerment in 1917 gave way to violent dictatorship.

Within months of the October Revolution, Lenin bemoaned lack of discipline among Russian workers, and both Leninist thought and Bolshevik rule became noticeably more authoritarian. Starting in summer 1918, with the economic crisis and civil war setting in, the Soviet state dramatically intensified its practices of violence and repression. Its leaders justified it as a path to the better future the revolution was meant to secure.

The long view

The revolution might no longer be directly relevant to the lives of many Russians, yet polls consistently find that more than half of Russians regret the collapse of the Soviet state. For Russia&rsquo;s political elite, opposed in principle to revolution, the centenary is less than welcome. The overriding message from Vladimir Putin and his government is that the social divisions associated with revolution could prove fatal for Russia, that the country has had enough of revolution, and that what it needs now is a strong state.

To address the question of the revolution&rsquo;s relevance is to address the broader question of the relevance of history. There are few chapters of history more uplifting and inspiring, more tragic and horrific, in short, more complex, than the Russian Revolution. In his new book, October: The Story of the Russian Revolution, author China Mi&eacute;ville argues that the relevance of 1917 is that it allows us to imagine the possibility of a very different type of political and social order.

Europe and Russia in 2017 look very different to what they did in 1917. The Bolsheviks came to power at a time of all-consuming crisis; by comparison, it is hard to imagine today&rsquo;s economically advanced countries reaching the brink of major revolution. Still, the stresses and strains of recent years have laid bare many of the shortcomings of globalised neoliberal capitalism, which are now acknowledged not just by those on the political left. The world is still beset by grotesque inequality, excessive corporate power and corruption, militarism and warfare, deplorable political leadership, and creeping environmental crisis.

When making sense of 1917 and its legacy, it&rsquo;s vital to avoid fatalism. It was not inevitable that the revolution would turn sour. Equally important is to remember that the Bolsheviks weren&rsquo;t really socialists; they were communists. The decades of authoritarian excess and abuse that marked the Soviet era are not a judgement on the merits of socialism.

What&rsquo;s fair to say is that the Bolsheviks&rsquo; virtues led also to their vices. But a measure of principled political leadership and a zeal to build a truly better world are needed as much today as a century ago &ndash; and perhaps even more.

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" rel="nofollow" target="blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-was-russias-october-revolution-for-and-does-it-matter-any-more-84533" rel="nofollow" target="blank">original article</a>.

The essence of the October Revolution was a revolution in human culture and the creation of a ?new Soviet person?, a better type of human without whom communism could not exist.

Few episodes in history capture the imagination quite like the Russian Revolution of 1917, undeniably one of the most important episodes of modern history. But a century later, what does it really mean? After all, the Soviet state that emerged from 1917 no longer exists, and the Cold War is over. Does the revolution have any relevance today? To judge by the flurry of interest in the centenary, a great deal. Historians and writers are in overdrive trying to convey what happened, how, and why, many focusing on the “ordinary” people involved and the extraordinarily talented artists who experienced, made and captured the revolution. That’s certainly in the spirit of the thing; Lenin himself described revolutions as “festivals of the oppressed and the exploited”. But it’s unwise to romanticise revolution in general, and the Russian Revolution in particular. The course the Revolution took was determined above all by Lenin and his ruling Bolshevik party, often alongside “the people”, but often also by force against them. One of the most important questions to ask, then, is: what was the October Revolution actually for? Why did the Bolsheviks take power? Their motive wasn’t power for its own sake; it was communism. It was a vision of a society perfected, one in which people would live in complete social harmony. The essence of the October Revolution was a revolution in human culture and the creation of a “new Soviet person”, a better type of human without whom communism could not exist. This was the most ambitious and sustained attempt at human transformation and liberation in modern European history – and yet the Soviet regime became the most violent state in modern peacetime Europe. This is the central contradiction of the Russian Revolution, and one of the great paradoxes of the 20th century. To understand why it happened, and how the Soviet state was formed, it is essential to remember it all happened in the context of World War I. In fact, without the war, there would have been no October Revolution at all. The tragedy of the revolution A century ago, Europe was consumed by assorted crises of enormous magnitude. Four empires – Russian, Austro-Hungarian, German, and Ottoman – were collapsing, leaving behind what historians refer to as the “shatter zones” of empire in central, southern, and eastern Europe. The experiences of war, state failure, and military defeat opened up spaces for paramilitary violence, atrocities and extremist politics over the next three decades. This tendency was especially pronounced in Russia, in part because of the ideological fervour that the Bolsheviks added to the mix. Lenin and his comrades were supremely theoretical politicians. They were not above opportunism and cunning, lies and brutality, but they were motivated more by a theoretical vision of a much better world than by self-interest. During the war, Lenin realised that because Marx had not lived through the age of imperialism, his thought was somewhat out of date. Imperialism, Lenin reasoned, was a new stage of capitalism. Imperial states had sought to conquer overseas colonies in order to exploit natural resources and cheap labour, and competition for colonies among the imperial states had inevitably culminated in catastrophic war. The only solution for humanity, Lenin believed, would be socialist revolutions, with an end to warfare once and for all. The tragedy of the Russian Revolution is that the palpable sense of popular emancipation and empowerment in 1917 gave way to violent dictatorship. Within months of the October Revolution, Lenin bemoaned lack of discipline among Russian workers, and both Leninist thought and Bolshevik rule became noticeably more authoritarian. Starting in summer 1918, with the economic crisis and civil war setting in, the Soviet state dramatically intensified its practices of violence and repression. Its leaders justified it as a path to the better future the revolution was meant to secure. The long view The revolution might no longer be directly relevant to the lives of many Russians, yet polls consistently find that more than half of Russians regret the collapse of the Soviet state. For Russia’s political elite, opposed in principle to revolution, the centenary is less than welcome. The overriding message from Vladimir Putin and his government is that the social divisions associated with revolution could prove fatal for Russia, that the country has had enough of revolution, and that what it needs now is a strong state. To address the question of the revolution’s relevance is to address the broader question of the relevance of history. There are few chapters of history more uplifting and inspiring, more tragic and horrific, in short, more complex, than the Russian Revolution. In his new book, October: The Story of the Russian Revolution, author China Miéville argues that the relevance of 1917 is that it allows us to imagine the possibility of a very different type of political and social order. Europe and Russia in 2017 look very different to what they did in 1917. The Bolsheviks came to power at a time of all-consuming crisis; by comparison, it is hard to imagine today’s economically advanced countries reaching the brink of major revolution. Still, the stresses and strains of recent years have laid bare many of the shortcomings of globalised neoliberal capitalism, which are now acknowledged not just by those on the political left. The world is still beset by grotesque inequality, excessive corporate power and corruption, militarism and warfare, deplorable political leadership, and creeping environmental crisis. When making sense of 1917 and its legacy, it’s vital to avoid fatalism. It was not inevitable that the revolution would turn sour. Equally important is to remember that the Bolsheviks weren’t really socialists; they were communists. The decades of authoritarian excess and abuse that marked the Soviet era are not a judgement on the merits of socialism. What’s fair to say is that the Bolsheviks’ virtues led also to their vices. But a measure of principled political leadership and a zeal to build a truly better world are needed as much today as a century ago – and perhaps even more. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

What was Russia's October Revolution for, and why does it matter?

In October 1918, a year after the 1917 October Revolution in Russia, a sailors&rsquo; mutiny in Germany triggered a revolutionary upsurge. Polish-born German philosopher Rosa Luxemburg and her comrade Karl Liebknecht emerged as key leaders in the unfolding revolution.

On 15 January 1919, at around nine in the evening, Luxemburg and Liebknecht were arrested by the army in Berlin. They were taken to the Eden Hotel where they were interrogated and tortured.

<figure class="align-right ">
<figcaption>
Luxemburg was then taken outside the hotel where she was beaten to death with a rifle butt. Her body was thrown into the Landwehr Canal. Liebknecht was shot dead. In death, Luxemburg and Liebknecht became martyrs to the communist cause. Even the Soviet Union&rsquo;s first head, Vladimir Lenin, with whom Luxemburg had a conflicted relationship, wrote&nbsp;that
</figcaption>
</figure>

<blockquote>
she was &mdash; and remains for us &mdash; an eagle. And not only will communists all over the world cherish her memory, but her biography and her complete work&hellip; will serve as useful manuals for training many generations of communists all over the world.
</blockquote>

Lenin&rsquo;s comments were prescient.

Here in 2017, Luxemburg is still widely regarded as a major theorist of imperialism, capitalism, democracy and political action.

Electrifying intelligence

Luxemburg was born in Zamosc, Poland, on 5 March 1871 to a lower-middle-class Jewish family. At the age of five, she became very ill and suffered damage to her hip that left her with a permanent limp and lifelong pain. But even as a child she had what&rsquo;s been described by the memoirist, Vivian Gornick, as an &ldquo;electrifying intelligence&rdquo;.

At the age of 15 she joined the Polish Proletariat Party, in which she developed a lifelong political connection to radical unions and workers. It was during this period that she began engaging in a range of political activities, including organising a general strike. These actions brought Luxemburg to the attention of the authorities. In 1887, when she had completed her secondary education, she fled to Switzerland to escape arrest.

She enrolled at the University of Zurich. She wanted, as one writer put it, everything &ndash; &ldquo;books and music, sex and art, evening walks and the revolution&rdquo;. Ten years later she graduated with a doctorate in law, making her one of the very few women with a PhD at the time.

Luxemburg then returned to serious political work. Her anti-capitalist and internationalist stance immediately put her at odds with the Polish Socialist Party. For Luxemburg, true independence did not just mean the independence of Poland, but a truly internationalist, anti-capitalist revolution. She would hold to radical internationalism until the end of her life.

In 1898 Luxemburg moved to Berlin to be, she believed, at the heart of the communist struggle. Unsurprisingly Germany didn&rsquo;t allow the young revolutionary into the country. She remedied this via a unconsummated marriage of convenience.

She immediately positioned herself on the radical left of the Social Democratic Party of Germany. She came to loathe the reformist parliamentary route taken by German socialists, leading her, years later, to describe the party as &ldquo;nothing but a stinking corpse&rdquo;.

During this period of her life, Luxemburg worked at a frantic pace, writing, teaching and speaking to build the international movement of the workers across Europe. From the outset, she was radically anti-imperialist. In 1899 she wrote with foresight that,

<blockquote>
the dismemberment of Asia and Africa is the final limit beyond which European politics no longer has room to unfold.
</blockquote>

Intellect and passion

Luxemburg first met Lenin in 1901 and was immediately drawn to his intellect and passion. They got to know each other well during the proletarian upsurges across Russian and Eastern Europe in 1905 and 1906. But Luxemburg and Lenin were often critical of each other.

She argued for a form of revolutionary democracy rooted in struggle, and theory as something constantly open to debate and change. In &ldquo;The Mass Strike, the Political Party and the Trade Unions&rdquo; (1906) she argued that spontaneity and organisation are both vital to any struggle.

In 1907, while teaching at a political school in Berlin, she began to undertake serious theoretical work on imperialism. This included a study of southern Africa. Luxemburg argued that the development of capitalism depended on the destruction of non-capitalist societies, beginning with the appropriation of land.

Her first major theoretical intervention, &ldquo;The Accumulation of Capital&rdquo; (1913) argued that capitalism could not function within a single society and that imperialism, &ldquo;a system of exploitation practised by European capital in the African colonies and in America&rdquo;, was inherent to capitalism. Capital, she wrote

<blockquote>
ransacks the whole world.
</blockquote>

Bourgeois interests

As the First World War ravaged Europe, Luxemburg, like her Russian comrades, was firm that the working classes were being used to fight the war but that it would be resolved in the interest of the bourgeois and the elite. Luxemburg together with Liebknecht and others started the Spartacus League to oppose the war and advocate for a more radical agenda in Germany.

In 1915, she was arrested but continued to agitate, write and communicate with the world outside. In a letter from prison, she wrote that

<blockquote>
To be a human being is the main thing above all else &hellip; To be a human being means to joyfully toss your entire life in the giant scales of fate if it must be so, and at the same time to rejoice in the brightness of every day and the beauty of every cloud.
</blockquote>

&ldquo;The Russian Revolution&rdquo;, an essay written in prison contains what is perhaps her most widely repeated remark:

<blockquote>
Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party &ndash; however numerous they may be &ndash; is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.
</blockquote>

When released from prison in 1918, she and Liebkneckt, immediately began the Die Rote Fahne (the Red Flag) newspaper. Luxemburg also worked tirelessly to foster the revolutionary spirit that led to the second revolutionary wave that hit Germany in January 1919. If she and her comrades had been successful with their revolution, history would most probably have taken a very different course, avoiding the rise of fascism in Europe.

But alas, it was not to be. As German poet Bertolt Brecht wrote in Epitaph (1909):

<blockquote>
Red Rosa now has vanished too. (&hellip;)

She told the poor what life is about,

And so the rich have rubbed her out.

May she rest in peace.
</blockquote>

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" rel="nofollow" target="blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/rosa-luxemburg-freedom-only-for-the-members-of-one-party-isnt-freedom-at-all-85865" rel="nofollow" target="blank">original article</a>.

If Rosa Luxemburg had been successful with her German revolution then the rise of fascism in Europe would have avoided

In October 1918, a year after the 1917 October Revolution in Russia, a sailors’ mutiny in Germany triggered a revolutionary upsurge. Polish-born German philosopher Rosa Luxemburg and her comrade Karl Liebknecht emerged as key leaders in the unfolding revolution. On 15 January 1919, at around nine in the evening, Luxemburg and Liebknecht were arrested by the army in Berlin. They were taken to the Eden Hotel where they were interrogated and tortured. Luxemburg was then taken outside the hotel where she was beaten to death with a rifle butt. Her body was thrown into the Landwehr Canal. Liebknecht was shot dead. In death, Luxemburg and Liebknecht became martyrs to the communist cause. Even the Soviet Union’s first head, Vladimir Lenin, with whom Luxemburg had a conflicted relationship, wrote that she was — and remains for us — an eagle. And not only will communists all over the world cherish her memory, but her biography and her complete work… will serve as useful manuals for training many generations of communists all over the world. Lenin’s comments were prescient. Here in 2017, Luxemburg is still widely regarded as a major theorist of imperialism, capitalism, democracy and political action. Electrifying intelligence Luxemburg was born in Zamosc, Poland, on 5 March 1871 to a lower-middle-class Jewish family. At the age of five, she became very ill and suffered damage to her hip that left her with a permanent limp and lifelong pain. But even as a child she had what’s been described by the memoirist, Vivian Gornick, as an “electrifying intelligence”. At the age of 15 she joined the Polish Proletariat Party, in which she developed a lifelong political connection to radical unions and workers. It was during this period that she began engaging in a range of political activities, including organising a general strike. These actions brought Luxemburg to the attention of the authorities. In 1887, when she had completed her secondary education, she fled to Switzerland to escape arrest. She enrolled at the University of Zurich. She wanted, as one writer put it, everything – “books and music, sex and art, evening walks and the revolution”. Ten years later she graduated with a doctorate in law, making her one of the very few women with a PhD at the time. Luxemburg then returned to serious political work. Her anti-capitalist and internationalist stance immediately put her at odds with the Polish Socialist Party. For Luxemburg, true independence did not just mean the independence of Poland, but a truly internationalist, anti-capitalist revolution. She would hold to radical internationalism until the end of her life. In 1898 Luxemburg moved to Berlin to be, she believed, at the heart of the communist struggle. Unsurprisingly Germany didn’t allow the young revolutionary into the country. She remedied this via a unconsummated marriage of convenience. She immediately positioned herself on the radical left of the Social Democratic Party of Germany. She came to loathe the reformist parliamentary route taken by German socialists, leading her, years later, to describe the party as “nothing but a stinking corpse”. During this period of her life, Luxemburg worked at a frantic pace, writing, teaching and speaking to build the international movement of the workers across Europe. From the outset, she was radically anti-imperialist. In 1899 she wrote with foresight that, the dismemberment of Asia and Africa is the final limit beyond which European politics no longer has room to unfold. Intellect and passion Luxemburg first met Lenin in 1901 and was immediately drawn to his intellect and passion. They got to know each other well during the proletarian upsurges across Russian and Eastern Europe in 1905 and 1906. But Luxemburg and Lenin were often critical of each other. She argued for a form of revolutionary democracy rooted in struggle, and theory as something constantly open to debate and change. In “The Mass Strike, the Political Party and the Trade Unions” (1906) she argued that spontaneity and organisation are both vital to any struggle. In 1907, while teaching at a political school in Berlin, she began to undertake serious theoretical work on imperialism. This included a study of southern Africa. Luxemburg argued that the development of capitalism depended on the destruction of non-capitalist societies, beginning with the appropriation of land. Her first major theoretical intervention, “The Accumulation of Capital” (1913) argued that capitalism could not function within a single society and that imperialism, “a system of exploitation practised by European capital in the African colonies and in America”, was inherent to capitalism. Capital, she wrote ransacks the whole world. Bourgeois interests As the First World War ravaged Europe, Luxemburg, like her Russian comrades, was firm that the working classes were being used to fight the war but that it would be resolved in the interest of the bourgeois and the elite. Luxemburg together with Liebknecht and others started the Spartacus League to oppose the war and advocate for a more radical agenda in Germany. In 1915, she was arrested but continued to agitate, write and communicate with the world outside. In a letter from prison, she wrote that To be a human being is the main thing above all else … To be a human being means to joyfully toss your entire life in the giant scales of fate if it must be so, and at the same time to rejoice in the brightness of every day and the beauty of every cloud. “The Russian Revolution”, an essay written in prison contains what is perhaps her most widely repeated remark: Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. When released from prison in 1918, she and Liebkneckt, immediately began the Die Rote Fahne (the Red Flag) newspaper. Luxemburg also worked tirelessly to foster the revolutionary spirit that led to the second revolutionary wave that hit Germany in January 1919. If she and her comrades had been successful with their revolution, history would most probably have taken a very different course, avoiding the rise of fascism in Europe. But alas, it was not to be. As German poet Bertolt Brecht wrote in Epitaph (1909): Red Rosa now has vanished too. (…) She told the poor what life is about, And so the rich have rubbed her out. May she rest in peace. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Rosa Luxemburg: Freedom for members of one party is no freedom

lenin

Lenin, News on Lenin, stories on Lenin, articles on Lenin, Lenin stories at Wion, Lenin news, Lenin latest news