Full bibliography

This article challenges Verity Burgmann’s claim that “Classical Marxism” is fatally enamoured with the dynamism of capital and therefore unable to sustain resistance to globalization. It argues that this charge rests on an overly neat identification of Classical Marxism with Second International orthodoxy and a distorted reading of Rosa Luxemburg’s work, particularly The Accumulation of Capital, which is shown to emphasize the violent incorporation and intensified exploitation of colonized and racialized workers rather than celebrating capitalist advance. The article also contends that Burgmann’s dismissal of Leninism and Third International Marxism erases their formative role in anti‑colonial struggles across Africa, Asia, and Latin America that helped make later anti‑ and alter‑globalization movements possible. In addition, it questions Burgmann’s elevation of anarchism and autonomist Marxism, noting her neglect of feminist organizing and women’s movements, and arguing that many of the qualities she attributes to these currents, above all, an insistence on agency, consciousness, and mass self‑activity, are already present in Luxemburg’s and Lenin’s Marxism. The article concludes that Marxism, understood through Luxemburg and Lenin rather than through Burgmann’s caricature of Classical Marxism, offers a still‑vital framework for confronting contemporary globalization, grounded in working‑class self‑emancipation and internationalist opposition to imperialism.