马克思和卢森堡都将公社组织形式和公有财产作为贯穿整个非西方前资本主义社会的一种普遍现象加以论述,对其被西方帝国主义征服之前内部所发生的不同转变给予了相当的关注,都没有将这些前资本主义形式理想化。同时,两人也存在一些分歧:卢森堡接受了认为穆斯林法律统治下的印度社会已然是封建社会这一说法,对此,马克思是明确反对的。卢森堡没有发现这些社会形式中存在着革命性动力或者主观发展需求,而马克思认为公社形式与现代资本主义的碰撞是有可能推动革命暴动的潜在因素。 Marx and Luxembourg, both as commoners and public property, as a general phenomenon that runs through the entire non-Western pre-capitalist society, have given considerable attention to the different changes that took place inside them before the Western imperialists conquered, none at all Idealize these forms of pre-capitalism. At the same time, there are also some differences between the two: In accepting the view that the Indian society under the Muslim law is already a feudal society, Luxembourg rejects this explicitly. Luxembourg did not find the existence of revolutionary or subjective developmental needs in these social forms. However, Marx thought that the collision of the commune form with modern capitalism was a potential factor that could push the revolutionary insurrection.