Manifesto: Three Classic Essays on
How to Change the World by Rosa
Luxemburg
All Three Writings Share In Common A Revolutionary Spark
Lets be realists, lets dream the impossible. Che Guevaras words
summarize the radical vision of the four famous rebels presented in this
book: Marx and Engels Communist Manifesto, Rosa Luxemburgs Reform
or Revolution and Che Guevaras Socialism and Humanity. Far from being
lifeless historical documents, these manifestos for revolution will resonate
with a new generation also seeking a better world.
The world described by Marx and Engels . . . is recognizably the world we
live in 150 years later.-Eric Hobsbawm
Rosa Luxemburg was a brilliant, brave and independent woman,
passionately internationalist and antiwar, a believer in the peoples
spontaneity in the cause of freedom; a woman who saw herself as Marxs
philosophical heir.-Adrienne Rich
Personal Review: Manifesto: Three Classic Essays on How to
Change the World by Rosa Luxemburg
Three very insightful essays. You can certainly learn and gain valuable
insight to the ideals that literally have changed the world in many ways.
Marx and Engels, Communist Manifesto; Rosa Luxemburg's Reform or
Revolution and Che Guevara's Socialism and Man in Cuba.

I really think this book is very enlightening and is a highly valuable read.
And with that, I would like to comment on the second essay, the essay by
the Polish Jew and political activist who attended Zurich University, Rosa
Luxemburg. This essay was published in 1898, nineteen years before the
1917 Bolshevik revolution.
Rosa Luxemburg's essay consists of an attack on Eduard Bernstein's book
entitled "Problems of Socialism," Seen from today's lenses reveals her
erroneous absolute and dogmatic views, lacking in comparison to the logic
of Bernstein. It's so obvious from the scientific Marxist views. Marx's and
Engels views were based on rational science, Hegelian dialectics and like
science, an exact blueprint of rational analysis. Today they call this "vulgar
Marxism" and few follow it.(You can find a good analysis in Allan Bloom's,
Closing the American Mind). Marxism today is not based on an exact
science. That is the old view, the original view. And the obvious result of
her attack on Bernstein is that everything she has attacked has come true,
her defense for Absolutism, for exact science in economic history through
Hegelian dialectics has proven false and inaccurate. Bernstein, on the
other hand, has proven the greater prophet. And the answer lies in
Luxemburg's very words of attack. In this she attacks him for his integral
approach of aperspectivism in integrating multiple paradigms which allow
the relative nature and uncertainty of the various shades and levels of both
Liberal Democracy and Socialism. Bernstein's sees the differing aspects
and refutes absolutism in Marxist science and dogmatism in its Hegelian
nature. History, nor economic history, is not an exact science. And If I may
take this a step further there are levels of subjectivity, objectivity, cultural
and social aspects or the I, We and It (&Its) (the big three or the 4
Quadrants of Ken Wilber's Integral Psychology).
Bernstein sees the problems of socialism and the need for liberal
democracy to reform slowly, even rejecting both (vulgar or original
scientific, Hegelian) Marxism and Socialism and choosing to remain a
liberal democracy but with socialist-liberal facets of nature (Roosevelt's
domestic policies for instance), while Luxemburg seeing Marxism as an
exact science sees revolution the only real way to bring forth Socialism.
And although both thinkers are basically reduction in inter-objective social
systems or political system theories, there still exists a major difference
between both and that 150 years of time has vindicated (relativlty
speaking: the low wages, poor and homeless in the U.S. are in large
numbers) Bernstein's flexible and integral insight with greater value than
Luxemburg's "flatland," which in Integral Psychology means interpreting
realty or in this case, economic political history, as only in objective terms,
failing to understand its relativity in dealing with the individual and
collective human subjective nature.
AND now I will contradict myself: Luxemburg was right, Bernstein was not.
After reading Howard Zinn's Peoples History of the United States, it is
evident; the only reforms come from revolution. Socialism is always
adamantly fought by the wealthy, compromises are extremely rare.

Now the essay by Che Geverra is the only without such a materialistic,
Hegelian science and Marxist exactitude of empirical societal observation
on economic meaning. It is much less dogmatic and in that sense less
scientific, being much more utilitarian in practical means to achieve a
socialist revolution and common sharing good of the Cuban society.
For More 5 Star Customer Reviews and Lowest Price:
Manifesto: Three Classic Essays on How to Change the World by Rosa Luxemburg 5
Star Customer Reviews and Lowest Price!