Rosa Luxemburg Day!

Unofficially. Normal Sunday decorum still applies.

My memory is too shoddy to maintain anything resembling an ideology. Too bad. For now, I'll enjoy Luxemburg's response to Eduard Bernstein. Over 100 years of things I know little about later... yet, this question still has a little left in the legs, at least for funsies. Below, a little taste and a link to Reform or Revolution.

Sweep the leg! Use your tail!

Revisionist theory thus places itself in a dilemma. Either the socialist transformation is, as was admitted up to now, the consequence of the internal contradictions of capitalism, and with the growth of capitalism will develop its inner contradictions, resulting inevitably, at some point, in its collapse, (in that case the “means of adaptation” are ineffective and the theory of collapse is correct); or the “means of adaptation” will really stop the collapse of the capitalist system and thereby enable capitalism to maintain itself by suppressing its own contradictions. In that case socialism ceases to be an historic necessity. It then becomes anything you want to call it, but it is no longer the result of the material development of society. The dilemma leads to another. Either revisionism is correct in its position on the course of capitalist development, and therefore the socialist transformation of society is only a utopia, or socialism is not a utopia, and the theory of “means of adaptation” is false. There is the question in a nutshell.