http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/50064/ It was at the eve of the previous century when the left of the time, represented in great part by the 2nd international, engaged in a debate on whether a “breakdown” is inherent in the dynamics of capitalist accumulation. The recovery of world capitalism from 1870-1890 depression drove prominent members of the international to proclaim the need to “revise” the Marxist heritage of the old social democracy. Economic works of the time, coming mainly from “legal Marxists”, argued that capitalism is an ever growing system, growth interrupted by recessions like the five and ten year cycles observed in capitalist economies, the latter attributed to disproportional-ties of various forms. Concluding that socialism does not emerge from economic necessity the “revisionists” preached in favor of gradual reforms ensuring that the working class will improve its position in the process of capitalist growth. This was the political line of the “right” wing of the old international where Edward Bernstein was the most prominent figure (Bernstein 18995 ). The most esteemed Marxist theorist of the time Karl Kautsky, who has the father of the term “revisionists”, did not particularly contest the notion of unimpeded growth under capitalism, although in various parts of his writings one can find under-consumption arguments. What he practically did was to reduce the notion of “breakdown” to a situation of an irreversible downturn in capitalist accumulation and argue that no such conviction was held by Marx. On these grounds he teamed with O. Bauer who took the argument further suggesting that the law of the falling rate of profit cannot function as the basis of a “breakdown theory”. In this regard Bauer presented a simulation of Marx’s schemes of expanded reproduction (Bauer 19136 ) showing that although the rate of profit kept declining by construction, profits (mass of profit) increased. The simulation was misleading, Bower stopped calculating after the fourth period but when the simulation is extended to multiple periods the mass of profit declines indicating a breakdown in accumulation, however this was shown almost twenty years later by Henryk Grossman (Grossman 19297 ). For the time Kautsky and Bauer, agreeing that socialism is a matter of “social consciousness” and not economic necessity, formed the “center” faction of the 2nd International. The political line of the “center” accepted the preaching of the right that the labor class should make the most of accumulation under capitalism but kept also the socialist potential as a matter for the future. What identified the left of the international was the conviction that the interests of the troubled masses cannot be satisfied in the capitalist mode of production (without a basic income that satisfies the masses but in the benefit of capitalism, its capitalist producers and owners of the factories and retail that will have a guaranteed, more certain ROI on consumption and the system earns 20%) and this willi nevitably lead to an insurrection led by the working class. In this context the primary duty of social democracy was to agitate and prepare this liberating event. Both prominent figures of the “left”, V. Lenin and R. Luxemburg, shared this revolutionary commitment however they took different approaches on the “breakdown” issue. Luxemburg acknowledged that if capitalism was a system of unimpeded growth then socialism “loses its granite foundation of objective historical necessity” deducted to the “mere injustice and badness of the present-day world. ---- In the book “Accumulation of Capital” (Luxemburg R. 1913 8) Luxemburg put forward an under-consumption argument, suggesting that growth in capitalism was contingent on demand coming from non-capitalist regions. She proclaimed that an increasing gap between workers consumption, capitalist consumption and replacement (of labor ) by machinery on one hand and total product value on the other prevails in capitalist reproduction. It made no sense, to her, for capitalists to close this gap through savings and investment since the capitalist class will be realizing this way part of its own surplus value. Missing the mere fact that this is exactly what capitalist production is all about, to invest profits, borrowed funds or both in an effort to make more profits, she concluded that when capitalism will dominate globally this will coincide with its inevitable end since value will remain unrealized. Capitalism here really refers to Anglo -North American diffidence; not pure global Capitalism represented by Volkswagen or Citroën, Lada or Toyota. Lenin recognized in Luxemburg’s work the under-consumption argument of the Narodniks he had attacked in his 1899 pamphlet “The Development of Capitalism in Russia” (Lenin V. 18999). In his view crises emerge because of disproportional growth of department I (production of means of production) relative to department II (production of means of consumption) a fluctuation similar to the ten year cycle observed in capitalist economies. Therefore contrary to Luxemburg the historical necessity of socialism does not emerge from the inherent contradictions of growth under capitalism. It is capitalist development itself, leading to the greatest socialization of production and the narrowest personal appropriation of its results, which brings the necessity for socialist transformation (Lenin 191310). A position similar to that of the “center” with the difference that Lenin held the conviction that the capitalist state cannot be transformed to a socialist one (Lenin 191711) and that the impulsive insurrection of the masses can be turned to a conscious struggle for socialism only through the mediation of the vanguard of the proletariat, in other words the communist party, the latter his most important political invention in the words of the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm. In conclusion the first decade of the 20th century found the left of the day in absolute confusion on the argument underlying Max’s Capital. Especially for the center and the left faction, at a time when strong growth, which followed the last depression, was beginning to fade and the drums of the forthcoming war were clearly heard, a persuasive argument supporting the preaching for socialism was missing. This was the reason which led both the center and the left to clink so heavily on the book by Rudolf Hilferding “Finance Capital” which came out in Vienna in 1910. The books’ main argument claimed to originate from Marx’s theory of concentration and centralization of capital, Marx’s most undisputed prediction in the words of Wassily Leontief.

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/50064/


It was at the eve of the previous century when the left of the time, represented in great
part by the 2nd international, engaged in a debate on whether a “breakdown” is inherent in the dynamics of capitalist accumulation. The recovery of world capitalism from 1870-1890
depression drove prominent members of the international to proclaim the need to “revise” the
Marxist heritage of the old social democracy. Economic works of the time, coming mainly
from “legal Marxists”, argued that capitalism is an ever growing system, growth interrupted
by recessions like the five and ten year cycles observed in capitalist economies, the latter
attributed to disproportional-ties of various forms. Concluding that socialism does not emerge
from economic necessity the “revisionists” preached in favor of gradual reforms ensuring that
the working class will improve its position in the process of capitalist growth. This was the
political line of the “right” wing of the old international where Edward Bernstein was the
most prominent figure (Bernstein 18995
).
The most esteemed Marxist theorist of the time Karl Kautsky, who has the father of
the term “revisionists”, did not particularly contest the notion of unimpeded growth under
capitalism, although in various parts of his writings one can find under-consumption
arguments. What he practically did was to reduce the notion of “breakdown” to a situation of
an irreversible downturn in capitalist accumulation and argue that no such conviction was
held by Marx. On these grounds he teamed with O. Bauer who took the argument further
suggesting that the law of the falling rate of profit cannot function as the basis of a
“breakdown theory”. In this regard Bauer presented a simulation of Marx’s schemes of
expanded reproduction (Bauer 19136
) showing that although the rate of profit kept declining
by construction, profits (mass of profit) increased. The simulation was misleading, Bower
stopped calculating after the fourth period but when the simulation is extended to multiple
periods the mass of profit declines indicating a breakdown in accumulation, however this was
shown almost twenty years later by Henryk Grossman (Grossman 19297
). For the time
Kautsky and Bauer, agreeing that socialism is a matter of “social consciousness” and not
economic necessity, formed the “center” faction of the 2nd International. The political line of
the “center” accepted the preaching of the right that the labor class should make the most of
accumulation under capitalism but kept also the socialist potential as a matter for the future.
What identified the left of the international was the conviction that the interests of the
troubled masses cannot be satisfied in the capitalist mode of production (without a basic income that satisfies the masses but in the benefit of capitalism,  its capitalist  producers and owners of the factories and retail that will have a guaranteed, more certain  ROI on consumption  and the system earns 20%) and this willi nevitably lead to an insurrection led by the working class. In this context the primary duty of social democracy was to agitate and prepare this liberating event. Both prominent figures of
the “left”, V. Lenin and R. Luxemburg, shared this revolutionary commitment however they
took different approaches on the “breakdown” issue.
Luxemburg acknowledged that if capitalism was a system of unimpeded growth then
socialism “loses its granite foundation of objective historical necessity” deducted to the “mere injustice and badness of the present-day world.
----

In the book “Accumulation of Capital” (Luxemburg R.
1913 8) Luxemburg put forward an under-consumption argument, suggesting that growth in capitalism was contingent on demand coming from non-capitalist regions. She proclaimed
that an increasing gap between workers consumption, capitalist consumption and replacement (of labor )
by machinery on one hand and total product value on the other prevails in capitalist
reproduction. It made no sense, to her, for capitalists to close this gap through savings and
investment since the capitalist class will be realizing this way part of its own surplus value.
Missing the mere fact that this is exactly what capitalist production is all about, to invest
profits, borrowed funds or both in an effort to make more profits, she concluded that when
capitalism will dominate globally this will coincide with its inevitable end since value will
remain unrealized. Capitalism here really refers to Anglo -North American diffidence; not pure global Capitalism represented by Volkswagen or Citroën, Lada or Toyota.
Lenin recognized in Luxemburg’s work the under-consumption argument of the
Narodniks he had attacked in his 1899 pamphlet “The Development of Capitalism in Russia”
(Lenin V. 18999). In his view crises emerge because of disproportional growth of department
I (production of means of production) relative to department II (production of means of
consumption) a fluctuation similar to the ten year cycle observed in capitalist economies.
Therefore contrary to Luxemburg the historical necessity of socialism does not emerge from
the inherent contradictions of growth under capitalism. It is capitalist development itself,
leading to the greatest socialization of production and the narrowest personal appropriation of
its results, which brings the necessity for socialist transformation (Lenin 191310). A position
similar to that of the “center” with the difference that Lenin held the conviction that the
capitalist state cannot be transformed to a socialist one (Lenin 191711) and that the impulsive
insurrection of the masses can be turned to a conscious struggle for socialism only through the
mediation of the vanguard of the proletariat, in other words the communist party, the latter his
most important political invention in the words of the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm.
In conclusion the first decade of the 20th century found the left of the day in absolute
confusion on the argument underlying Max’s Capital. Especially for the center and the left
faction, at a time when strong growth, which followed the last depression, was beginning to
fade and the drums of the forthcoming war were clearly heard, a persuasive argument
supporting the preaching for socialism was missing. This was the reason which led both the
center and the left to clink so heavily on the book by Rudolf Hilferding “Finance Capital”
which came out in Vienna in 1910. The books’ main argument claimed to originate from
Marx’s theory of concentration and centralization of capital, Marx’s most undisputed
prediction in the words of Wassily Leontief.