gramsci luxemborg

7/27/2019 Gramsci Luxemborg

1/12

Printer Friendly Version

Antonio Gramsci And Rosa Luxemburg:

Leading Thinkers On Socialist Democracy

By Dr. Peter Custers

21 December, 2011

Countercurrents.org

1. Introduction

In my below essay I will briefly discuss the views of two European theorists, Antonio Gramsci

and Rosa Luxemburg. Both were leading thinkers of the European workers movement in the

beginning of the 20th century. The Italian revolutionary Antonio Gramsci emerged towards the

end of the First World War as organiser and editor of the weekly called lOrdine Nuovo. The

paper propagated the building of workers councils at factory level, as expression of the

autonomous power of workers as producers. After the formation of the Italian Communist Party,

Gramsci was elected to Parliament and became the partys de facto leader from 1924. In

November 1926, he was arrested and incarcerated by Mussolinis fascist regime. During his

prolonged stay in jail Gramsci undertook intensive studies on aspects of social theory which in

his view had not been fully theorized by Marxist teachers before him. These aspects all related to

politics and culture, i.e. aspects identified as societys superstructure - contrasting with

economic relations being societys base. Seriously weakened physically in consequence of

incarceration, Gramsci died shortly after he was released in 1937 (1).

Gramscis writings on workers councils are exceedingly important for any discussion on

Marxism and socialist democracy. So too are Rosa Luxemburgs critique of Lenins

organisational principles, and a part of her critique of the Russian revolution. Luxemburg

gathered first-hand experience as revolutionary in the country of her birth Poland, during the

upheaval of 1905 when she was arrested and detained. Later, after her release, she shifted to

Germany, joined the powerful Social Democratic Party, and became a fierce critic of the

parliamentary leanings of the Partys rightwing leaders, foremost those of the revisionist

Bernstein who opposed militant strike struggles. With foresight, she early started campaigning

against German militarism and against the threat of a world war, - well before World War One


2/12

actually erupted in 1914. Like Lenin, she theorized imperialism as a new phase in the history of

capitalism. But she did so from a position that was clearly differentiated from his. For she

focused largely on questions of international trade instead of on foreign investments of capital

(2). Luxemburgs writings on Marxism and democracy, although they dont have a systematic

character, are exceptional. For whereas she fully endorsed the building of a workers state based

on workers and soldiers councils as the Bolsheviks in Russia attempted to, - she disagreed with

the Bolsheviks temptation to suppress dissent. Rosa Luxemburg was incarcerated during World

War One, and within months after her release towards the end of 1918, she was brutally

murdered for supporting the uprising of the Spartacus League in Berlin (3).

Below I will only focus on aspects of the European working class movement immediately after

the Bolshevik Revolution took place (1917). At the time the centre of the international working

class movement did, of course, lie in Europe. Inevitably therefore, the thematic of this essay is

Eurocentric. Nevertheless, the experiences gathered in that period of history have more than

ordinary significance for debates today. For it was probably during this historical period that

workers democracy was experimented with on the widest geographical scale, notably in Russia,

Germany, Hungary and Italy (4). Moreover, even if many of the views expressed by Gramsci

and Luxemburg were no final views on the theme of Marxism and democracy, - it is still crucial

to recognize that part of working class history has been sidelined by the prolonged dominance of

Leninism. I have divided my discussion into two parts: * the question of factory councils, and *

the question of peoples civil and political rights under socialism. I am aware of the fact this will

not be the final word on these themes.

2. Workers Councils

The first point to be scored, is that the movement for the building of workers councils emerged

from the experience gathered by Russian workers in the revolutions of 1905 and 1917. The

Russian proletariat did not just succeed in building political power in Russia on the basis of its

factory councils and territorial soviets. It inspired industrial workers through other parts of

Europe to do the same. In Hungary a Soviet state briefly functioned immediately after World

War I. In Germany the countrywide-movement to construct workers councils was so powerful

that in 1918 it led to the fall of the imperial government. And in Italy, about which I will say

more below, factory councils dominated life in the countrys industrial heartland, i.e. theNorthern city of Turin and its surroundings, up until the factory occupations of 1920. To my

knowledge, a comparative evaluation of the experience of factory councils in Europe during

1918/1919 is overdue. Yet there is no doubt that the experience was very rich that it

demonstrated the capacity of industrial workers to run society and that it showed the possibility

of a radical and democratic alternative to bourgeois-parliamentary democracy.


3/12

Here I will focus on only one of these varied experiments with workers councils, namely those

built by Italias industrial workers. This experience was summed up by Antonio Gramsci in a

report he dispatched to the Communist International in July of 1920 (5). The council movement

in Turin arose in the wake of two workers insurrections staged during the war years. These

indeed were armed confrontations with the forces of state. According to Gramsci, - during the

second insurrection of August of 1917 alone some 500 people were killed (6). Though beaten

back, the workers in no time re-organized and launched new strike struggles. These culminated

in the historic April movement of 1920, when all metal workers of Turin city struck for a whole

month, while other categories of workers downed their tools for ten days. According to Gramsci,

in its last ten days this general strike encompassed the whole region surrounding Turin, i.e.

Piedmont. About half a million industrial and agricultural workers were mobilised, signifying

some 4 million people were involved. Whereas other strikes, such as the strike wave that had

broken out in the first part of 1919, had been over the eight-hour working day, - the April strike

in Turin was centred on the recognition of factory councils. It was followed by factory

occupations which unfortunately could not be sustained (7).

In order to understand the context in which factory councils could emerge, some facts need to be

stated on the composition of the working class in Turin at the time. Here, according to Gramsci,

nearly three-quarters in a population of half a million consisted of working class families. Further,

the process of production was perfectly centralized, in particular in the automobile and

engineering industry which employed 50 thousand shop-floor workers and 10 thousand clerks

and technicians. The greater part of the workforce was made up of skilled workers and

technicians. Moreover, both the engineering workers and the technicians were well organized.

According to Gramsci, Turin possessed a single trade union organisation, which at the time he

wrote his report had 90 thousand affiliated workers. What is also crucial to note, so as to

understand the reasons for the success of the council movement, is that the clerks and technicians

in the factories solidly stood by the workers in their strikes. Moreover, workers in other sectors

such as in woodworking and in rubber, generally were willing to follow the lead of the metal

workers (8).

Before elaborating on the methodology of workers democracy built at factory level, I should

briefly outline the organisational structure of the factory councils. The basic approach is

explained well in a crucial document entitled The Programme of the Workshop Delegates,

written by a study-group of the council movement soon after the first councils had been formed.

The group comprised mainly workers, but it included Antonio Gramsci and its document clearly

bore the influence of Gramscis thinking. According to this program, member-delegates of the

factory councils were appointed on a factory-workshop basis. They represented all workers in a

given workshop, and held both trade union and council responsibilities at the same time. The


4/12

factory council, consisting of all workshop delegates, was in principle convened once every

week. In between, factory level responsibilities were carried out by the councils executive

commissariat which consisted of workers excused from work for their term of duty. This

committee met every evening to assess the work of the delegates, and it was also entrusted with

bringing out a fortnightly factory bulletin. The powers and duties of the delegates, the councils

and the executive commissariat, all were spelled out clearly in the above mentioned Programme

(9).

With regard to the functioning of the council system the most important point to be noted I

believe is that the delegates needed to enjoy full confidence of their electorate. They were subject

to instant recall! This provision echoes the experience of the Paris Commune of 1870, the first

and short-lived West European experiment in the building of a workers state. Both Marx and

Engels had praised the tremendous courage of the Paris workers in staging an insurrection

against heavy odds. They had also stressed the uniqueness of the rules the Communards had

devised for the functioning of their municipal government elected after the take-over of power in

the city. Thus, in his be-famed writing The Civil War in France, Marx argued that universal

suffrage under the Commune system served the people: The Commune was formed of the

municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible

and revocable at short term. In this latter respect, as well as with respect to payment (bare

workers wages for politicians!), the rules of the Commune were differentiated from the formal

democracy of the bourgeois-parliamentary-system (10).

Under the Italian factory council system that emerged in Turn subsequent to World War One, -

the workshop delegates elected as members of the councils too were subject to instant recall. If

any were repudiated by a half plus one of his electorate, or by the majority of the factory

assembly, - the delegate was obliged to seek renewal of his mandate (11). As to voting, the

Programme stated it would take place by secret ballot. Further, it is important to stress that no

limits were placed on the right of ordinary workers to participate in elections to factory councils.

Whether any person were organized in a trade union did not matter it did not impact on his

voting right. Candidates who stood for the elections of workshop delegates had to be trade union

members here there was a sensible restriction indeed. But this restriction did not exist with

regard to voting rights. Given this electoral system, it is clear that the factory councils represented

the entire proletariat in factories where they functioned. The councils became the expression of

the unity of the working class at the level of production. They not only represented all manual

workers, i.e. workers physically engaged in production, - but other categories of waged

employees, such as engineers, technical supervisors and clerical staff as well (12).

A brief comment is in place regarding the relations between factory councils and the trade

unions. Gramsci, in writings for lOrdine Nuovo, insisted that the factory councils were a


5/12

historically new phenomenon, and that they should be differentiated conceptually from trade

unions (13). The latter, he argued, were institutions formed within the framework of capitalism.

Unions served to represent the workers as waged slaves in negotiations with the representatives

of the employers class. Their historical mission was to strive for improvements in wages and

other working conditions under the rule of capital. Factory councils instead were defined by

Gramsci as embodiment of the working class as producers. Their historical mission was to give

guidance to production itself, and to function as the anti-thesis of the employers authority.

Ultimately their aim was to conquer public power and eliminate private property. Nevertheless,

the above mentioned programmatic regulations drafted by the council study group, were not

concerned with production control alone, but also with trade union-work at factory level. The

Programme warned against any repetition of the fatal error of conflict which had tragically

shaped relations between unions and councils in Hungary (14). In fact, factory delegates in Turin

were entrusted with double functions, including the representation of trade union-members. The

modalities for discussions on negotiations towards agreements between unions and employer-

organisations too were elaborated in the council-regulations referred to! (15).

Before concluding this brief summary on Gramcis views regarding the Italian factory councils,

let me refer to what appears to have been their principal limitation in practice. The council

movement in 1919 and 1920 helped the industrial working class in the North of Italy develop

enormous power. Yet contrary to the proletarian movements built in Russia and Hungary, the

Italian movement on the whole did not result in the formation of soviets, of territorial bodies

representing workers power, at least not throughout Italy. In Turin assemblies bringing together

factory delegates were held, but the geographic parameter of workers power was circumscribed.

Moreover, though the factory councils in the city and its surroundings strove to take over power

from capitalist owners, - in reality full consolidation of workers power over factory production

did not take place, and the power of the industrialists over production was re-established after a

temporary occupation of Turin factories in 1920. Nevertheless, the experience of the Italian

workers councils, and of Gramscis weekly lOrdine Nuovo, is of extraordinary importance

today. For in course of this movement, workers democracy took a very concrete shape.

Moreover, the structure of workers democracy was embodied in very precise regulations, -

regulations which continue to serve as an apt reference point for debates on workers democracy

today!

3. Civil Rights under Socialism

I will now proceed to discuss the question of peoples civil rights under socialism. All opponents

of the bourgeois form of democracy participating in the debates of the international workers

movement in the beginning of the 20th century, including Lenin, Gramsci and Luxemburg,


6/12

argued the world proletarian revolution they dreamt of would bring a higher form of democracy.

There was agreement, following Marx, that the new state would be a class state, just like the

bourgeois states to be replaced by the workers republics. Like the bourgeoisie which used

dictatorial methods whenever its class interests were threatened, - the working class too would

have to defend its class rule and suppress counter-revolutionary groups and sections of the

population. Nevertheless, the new socialist republic representing the interests of the oppressed

would be more democratic in content than any of the bourgeois republics to be replaced. The

common position of Marxist theoreticians was: socialism would mean not that democratic rights

would be restricted - but that in fact these would be extended far beyond the rights bourgeois

states had granted their citizens.

Quite soon after the Bolsheviks staged their revolution in Russia (1917) however, a controversy

arose over some of the measures taken by Lenins new government to consolidate its state rule.

Surely, the Bolshevik revolution was hailed as the very most radical rupture with capitalist

exploitation ever attempted. Surely, and for this reason, there were sustained attempts by

imperialist powers to subvert the new revolutionary government. Surely, in order to consolidate

revolutionary rule, some measures of repression, such as against members of the former

autocratic (tsarist) government were inevitable. Nevertheless, doubts did arise rather soon over

measures taken against a range of political forces, - including against Left Socialist and anarchist

forces, that held programmatic differences with Lenins Party but were Left-leaning. These

measures of suppression amongst others included: * the dismantling of the Constituent Assembly

where the Bolsheviks were in a minority and were up against the party of Socialist

Revolutionaries and * stern measures restraining others civil rights, such as the banning of

publications of rival political organisations, and ultimately prohibition of these organisations.

An articulate critic of Bolshevik measures was the Marxist thinker Rosa Luxemburg whose

positions on many theoretical questions were rather close to those of Lenin. To be clear from the

start: like Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, when participating in the debates of the German Social

Democratic Party, had outspokenly opposed the tendency of Rightwing leaders to neglect extra-

parliamentary mass actions, i.e. the tendency to overwhelmingly rely on participation in

Parliament (16). In her writings on bourgeois parliaments, Luxemburg admitted that these can

be an arena of class struggles that at crucial moments the mood of the masses penetrates the

bourgeois parliament and that the extension of voting rights towards all sections of the working

class was a historical achievement that should be valued by Marxists without hesitance.

Nevertheless, Luxemburg was aware of the fact that parliamentary democracy is formal in kind,

and that through revolutionary struggle it needs to be replaced by a new, more comprehensive

type of democracy (17).

Yet Luxemburg early raised pointed questions about the organisational methods used by Lenins


7/12

Bolsheviks. Thus, in a text published as early as in 1904, she critically commented on Lenins

book One Step Forward, Two Steps Back. Here she argued, that Lenins propositions on party

structure amounted to ultra-centralism. She specifically took issue with Lenins proposition that

the partys central committee would have a determining power to intervene in all activities of the

local chapters of the party. Thus she questioned the omnipotent central power with its unlimited

right of intervention and control(!). Whereas she agreed with Lenins principle of centralisation,

she argued that centralisation should be of a coordinating, synthetic character, and not a

regulative and exclusive one. Whereas she understood that Lenins policies were aimed at

countering opportunism within the Russian labour movement, Luxemburg was afraid his

organisational approach would tend to weaken the partys capacity to rely on the spontaneity of

the masses. It would weaken the partys capacity to draw synthetic lessons from the experience

of the Russian working class gathered in the course of the labourers own independent combats

(18).

In the context of this brief essay there is no scope to reflect in detail on Luxemburgs critique of

Lenins party principles, and on the differential experience of China under Mao Ze Dung. What

is important to note though, is that her doubts concerning Bolshevik Party policies were not

restricted to organisational principles alone. After the Bolshevik revolution took place, they were

broadened and came to comprise a whole series of issues relating to civil rights and political

democracy. While imprisoned in Germany because of her opposition against militarism and

World War One, she wrote a long pamphlet, entitled The Russian Revolution (September,

1918). The pamphlet was published posthumously in 1922, i.e. after she had been brutally killed

by the German police (19). In this pamphlet she praised the Bolsheviks for their extraordinary

courage expressed understanding for the complications they faced in the immediate post-

revolutionary period. Still, Luxemburg stated strong reservations with regard to Bolshevik

policies. Below I will skip her critique of the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly (in view of

an apparent contradiction in her own stance (20)), but will highlight two issues relating to

peoples civil rights.

The first one is that of voting rights. Luxemburg noted that the right of suffrage elaborated by the

new Soviet government was very restricted, - too restricted in her view. According to Lenins

and Trotskys interpretation of proletarian dictatorship, Luxemburg stated, the right to vote would

be granted only to those who live by their own labour and is denied to everybody else. She

noted that under Russias revolutionary conditions the lives of many people had been disrupted,

derailed without any objective possibility of finding any employment. This was true not only

for members of the elite, the capitalist and landowning class, - but also for members of the middle

classes, and even for members of the working class! Under these circumstances, a political right

of suffrage on the basis of a general obligation to labour, she stated, is quite an incomprehensible


8/12

measure. Luxemburg thus pleaded in favour of respecting the principle of universal suffrage.

This after all had historically been granted to members of the working class not by way of

bourgeois charity, - but in consequence of the working class own determined struggles. She

warned against a general disenfranchisement of broad sections of society, something she would

completely disagree with (21).

The second point is that regarding freedom of expression and freedom of association. Shortly

after the conquest of power, the new Soviet government instituted measures banning the

publications of a whole series of rival political organisations. The list of prohibitions w as indeed

strikingly large. It included even the paper brought out previously by the highly respected

socialist writer Maxim Gorky! Moreover, they were followed later by prohibitions on rival

political organisations. In her pamphlet Luxemburg expressed firm disagreement with these

measures: It is a well known and an indisputable fact that without a free and untrammelled press,

without the unlimited right of association and assemblage, the rule of the broad masses of the

people is entirely unthinkable. Luxemburg warned that the tendency of the Bolshevik Party to

rely on extensive terror and on other measures of repression for consolidation of their rule, would

ultimately threaten the revolution itself. For the revolutions success depended on the strength of

political life, it depended on the participation of the broad masses of the people. With the

repression of political life in the land as a whole, life in the soviets must also become more and

more crippled. (22)

Lastly, I wish to quote the way Luxemburg defined democracy in her pamphlet. Though some of

the statements se made on the Russian revolution in 1918 are largely of historical interest, - a part

of her views remain of great actual value today. This counts in particular for the manner in which

she defined democracy. Whoever has been dubbed a heretic like the undersigned, or has been

denounced for holding diverging or dissenting views, is bound to feel comforted. For in a truly

prophetic passage, she argued: 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. Not because of any fanatical

concept of justice, but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political

freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when freedom

becomes a special privilege (23). Now that the historical era when socialism was defined as one

party-rule has passed for ever, there is much reason to reflect on the way Rosa Luxemburg

defined socialist democracy, and to re-reflect on her defence of peoples civil and political rights

under socialism formula-ted at the very start of Lenins Bolshevik Party-rule.

4. Conclusion

By way of conclusion of this summary on Marxism and socialist democracy, I wish to re-state


9/12

the need to break with all exclusivist traditions. This break is an important precondition, I believe,

for the revival and blossoming of Marxist thinking in the era of globalised resistance. After the

success of the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, and given Lenins extraordinary success in

capturing state power for the Russian working class, - it was only natural for socialist activists

worldwide to uphold the Bolshevik experiment, and gloss over its limitations in terms of socialist

democracy. Lenin could muster his unique success because he hailed the workers councils that

mushroomed in the course of the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917. His moral stance

seemed to invalidate all criticisms. Further, since imperialist countries made strenuous efforts to

subvert the Russian revolution through multiple military interventions, - it was only natural for

socialists to rally to Lenins cause. Even Rosa Luxemburg in her critical essay on the Russian

revolution referred to the absolute need to stand by the Bolshevik Party. The victory of Leninism

within the international workers movement is similarly explainable. It was predicated on the fact

that the Russian revolution triumphed in a period when all other attempts to establish workers

rule in countries of Europe tragically failed.

Today, in the era of globalisation, when the undemocratic practices in formerly socialist states

have resulted in a worldwide setback for almost all emancipatory currents, - there is little reason

to continue glossing over the limitations of the Bolshevik experiment. Lenins contribution to the

history of Marxism, such as his popular formulation of the theory of imperialism his ideas on the

unity of workers and peasants in the democratic revolution and his enthusiastic and principled

support for anti-colonial struggles in countries of the South all these are appreciated. However,

it is crucial for Marxists today to recognize that valuable currents have been sidelined historically,

that currents such as those represented by Antonio Gramsci and Rosa Luxemburg have

contributed their own, differential ideas to the tradition of Marxist thought. There is an urgent

need to democratise our thinking as Marxist activists. For too long dissidents and minorities

within the Marxist tradition have been ignored, or even condemned in the name of an unfailing

Leninism. In the era of globalisation Marxism can still regain its status as a scientific or proto-

scientific critique of capitalist rule. However, it can only do so, if we are ready to reflect on the

contributions a variety of currents have historically made to human emancipation, including -

most adamantly - the feminists and the anarchists. An open re-appraisal of the international

workers movement in its flourishing period after World War One will, I believe, be helpful. It

will be helpful towards developing an up-to-date perspective on socialist democracy.

Dr. Peter Custers Leiden, the Netherlands, December 1, 2011 - www.petercusters.nl

References:

(1) on Gramscis life, see for instance: John M.Cammett, Antonio Gramsci and the Origins of

Italian Communism (Stanford University Press, California, USA, 1967) and Alistair Davidson,


10/12

Antonio Gramsci. Towards an Intellectual Biography (Merlin Press, London, 1987) also

Narahari Kabiraj, Gramsci. Jiban O Chinta (Radical Book Club, Kolkota, 1996)

(2) see Rosa Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital (Monthly Review Press, New York,

1964) for excerpts see Peter Hudis and Kevin B. Anderson (ed.), The Rosa Luxemburg Reader

(Monthly Review Press, New York, 2004), Part One, Chapter 1, p.32 (The Historical

Conditions of Accumulation)

(3) on Luxemburgs life, see for instance: Peter Nettle, Rosa Luxemburg (Oxford University

Press, 1969) and Elzbieta Ettinger, Rosa Luxemburg. A Life (Beacon Press, Boston, 1986)

(4) for a bibliography on the history of workers councils, see e.g. Anton Pannekoek, Workers

Councils (Introduction by Noam Chomsky AK Press, Oakland/Edinburg, 2003, p.209) for

experiences in the Global South, see e.g. Assef Bayat, Workers and Revolution in Iran: A Third

World Experience of Workers Control (Zed Press, London, 1987) and Ian Clegg, Workers

Self- Management in Algeria (Monthly Review Press, New York, 1971)

(5) see The Turin Factory Councils Movement (Report dispatched in July 1920 to the

Executive Committee of the Communist International - see Antonio Gramsci, Selections from

Political Writings. 1910-1920 (Lawrence & Wishart, London, 1977, p.310)

(6) ibid, p.314

(7) ibid see further Paulo Spriano, The Occupation of the Factories (Pluto Press, London, 1975)

(8) Antonio Gramsci (1977), op.cit., p.311/312

(9) ibid,p.114 for an anarchist account of the Italian workers councils, see e.g. Daniel Guerin,

Anarchism from Theory to Practice (Introduction by Chomsky - Monthly Review Press, New

York, 1970), p.109

(10) see Karl Marx, The Civil War in France. Address of the General Council of the

International Working Mens Association (in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works.

Volume Two (Progress Publishers, Moscow, USSR, 1973), p.202

(11) Antonio Gramsci (1977), op.cit., p.119

(12) ibid

(13) see eg. Antonio Gramsci, Unions and Councils (from lOrdine Nuovo, 12 June 1920 -

Antonio Gramsci (1977), op.cit., p.265)

(14) Antonio Gramsci (1977), op.cit., p.115


11/12

(15) ibid, p.119/120

(16) see e.g. Rosa Luxemburg, Social Reform or Revolution (1899) and The Mass Strike, the

Political Party and the Trade Unions(1905) in Peter Hudis & Kevin B. Anderson (2004) ,

op.cit., p.128 and 168

(17) for Luxemburgs position on the formation of workers and soldiers councils, see the

programmatic document What Does the Spartacus League Want? (in Peter Hudis and Kevin B.

Anderson (2004), op.cit.), p.354

(18) for Luxemburgs critique of Lenins organisational methods and his inner-party centralism,

see the following two documents: Organisational Questions of Russian Social Democracy

(Neue Zeit, 1904) and Credo: On the State of Russian Social Democracy (September/October,

1911) (texts published in Peter Hudis and Kevin B. Anderson (2004), op.cit., p.248 and p.266

respectively

(19) republished in Peter Hudis and Kevin B. Anderson (2004), op.cit., p.281

(20) for this question, see eg. Peter Nettle (1969), op.cit., p.452 and Peter Bierl, Alle Macht den

Raeten. Rosa Luxemburg: Raete Demokratie und Sozialismus (ISP Verlag, GmbH, Koeln,

Germany, 1993), p.9

(21) see Peter Hudis and Kevin B. Anderson (2004), op.cit., p.302-304

(22) ibid, p.304-307

(23) ibid, p.305.

Share 3

Comments are not moderated. Please be responsible and civil in your postings and stay within

the topic discussed in the article too. If you find inappropriate comments, just Flag (Report)

them and they will move into moderation que.


12/12

gramsci luxemborg

Documents