Freedom only for supporters of the government is not freedom; freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently.
Luxemburg wrote it in 1918 in her manuscript on the Russian Revolution, published in 1922, as a criticism of Lenin's suppression of opposition. Her argument was that socialist democracy needed the liberty of its opponents. East German dissidents carried the line on banners at the official Luxemburg commemoration in 1988 and were arrested for it.
In practice
- A party that champions free speech on campus finds it harder to defend when the speaker belongs to the other side.
- A club that votes to allow open debate learns what it meant when the first dissenting member stands up.
- Possible explanations
- One explanation for its force is that freedom is tested only by disagreement: liberty for one's allies costs nothing.
- In its favour
- States a principle recognised across the political spectrum, and was used by dissidents against the very regime that claimed her legacy.
- Against it
- Critics note tensions with Luxemburg's own support for revolutionary rule elsewhere in her writing. As a precept it gives no rule for where tolerance should end.
- Standing
- Compare the paradox of tolerance and the harm principle.
- Subject
- Law & Politics
- Essay
- Rules that restrain power, and advice on using it