SigPhiSigPhi

罗莎·卢森堡——社会主义的反教权政策(1903)

罗莎·卢森堡

语言:
英语
状态:
完整作品
作者归属:
作者本人所著
文本状况:
未检测到扫描噪点 (对全文的自动评估,未经人工核对)
篇幅:
约 3,370 词 · 16 个段落
引用本作品
  • APA罗莎·卢森堡. (n.d.). Rosa Luxemburg An anti-clerical policy of Socialism (1903) [罗莎·卢森堡——社会主义的反教权政策(1903)]. Digital reproduction: SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/zh/works/rosa-luxemburg/rosa-luxemburg-an-anti-clerical-policy-of-socialism-1903
  • MLA罗莎·卢森堡. Rosa Luxemburg An anti-clerical policy of Socialism (1903) [罗莎·卢森堡——社会主义的反教权政策(1903)]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/zh/works/rosa-luxemburg/rosa-luxemburg-an-anti-clerical-policy-of-socialism-1903.
  • Chicago罗莎·卢森堡. Rosa Luxemburg An anti-clerical policy of Socialism (1903) [罗莎·卢森堡——社会主义的反教权政策(1903)]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/zh/works/rosa-luxemburg/rosa-luxemburg-an-anti-clerical-policy-of-socialism-1903.

这是 SigPhi 所复制版本的引用:SigPhi 是其数字复制品,不是出版者。元数据中没有版本年份(因此写作“n.d.”),译者只有在有记录时才列出。

内容简介

《社会主义的反教权政策》(1903):一个工人政党该拿宗教怎么办。

背景与流传

卢森堡的立场比标题所允诺的更细:政教分离,是;跟工人的信仰作战,不。与目录中德文的《教会与社会主义》并读很合适。 英译本,出自Marxists Internet Archive。原文是德文——视篇目而定也可能是波兰文;引用应以原文为准。 这是一篇文章或一次大会发言,不是一本书:它在目录中的篇幅就是这篇文字本来的长度。

这是编辑性背景,不是可引用的来源:与作品本身的段落不同,这些说明无法在语料库中核对。

开篇
The analogy of the situation occupied by the army and by the Church towards the Republic has brought about a closer union between these two powers and has given a monarchical colouring to all the later political crises which have occurred in France. Every time these two organs of the Republic have been united in their revolt. And just as the contradiction between the army and the Republic can only be solved by the transformation of the standing army into a militia, the contradiction between the Catholic Church and the Republic can only disappear when the Church shall have ceased to be a public institution and shall have become a private institution, that is to say, when the Church shall have been separated from the State, when the clergy shall havebeen driven from the schools and from the army, and when the property of the religious orders shall have been confiscated. The Social-Democracy does not ask the partial confiscation of capitalist property by the middle-class State, but that is not because it is in principle an opponent of these confiscations. In cases where we ask for the socialisation of an industry, of that of the railways for example, we should not object if this measure took place simply by confiscation. If this be not one of our desiderata, if we do not ask only in certain cases that the State should take over an industry, it is because this working of an industry by the State would not alter the capitalist character of property and, indeed, in some cases it increases the power of a reactionary State. Even when this fear is not justified, as in Switzerland, such a demand addressed to a middle-class government is really utopian.

阅读全文 →

← 返回罗莎·卢森堡