LENIN'S NOTES ON THE BOOK
BY R. LUXEMBURG
"THE ACCUMULATION OF CAPITAL"
•Lenin Collection XXII

The two documents printed below are: 4) notes by Lenin on R. Luxemburg's book: "The Accumulation of Capital" and 2) an outline of an article that Lenin apparently intended to write in response to this book.
Both documents date from 1913, i.e., from the time of Lenin's stay in Poronin, near Krakow. This is evidenced, among other things, by the first point of Lenin's response plan, which reads: "Vor 44 Jahren. Narodniks versus Marxists. Legal Marxists and Social Democrats." Lenin here refers to the discussion on the theory of markets that took place in Russia in the late nineties.
"The Accumulation of Capital" was published in January 1913. Thus, Lenin worked on "The Accumulation of Capital" in the same year that this book appeared. And already in the bibliographical appendix to the article "Karl Marx," written for the Granat encyclopedic dictionary at the beginning of the World War (autumn 1914), R. Luxemburg's work is assessed as "an incorrect interpretation of Marx's theory."
The notes published below were made by Lenin while reading "The Accumulation of Capital" on two separate small sheets, folded in half.
The sheets at our disposal do not cover the entire text of the book. There are 2 large omissions in them; there are no notes on pp. 32-459 and 460-243 of R. Luxemburg's book. It can therefore be assumed that at least 2 sheets with Lenin's notes have not yet been found or have not been preserved at all. However, the notes published here cover a number of the most important provisions of "The Accumulation of Capital" and provide valuable material that fully characterizes Lenin's attitude to the entire concept of the work in question. This is the enormous political and theoretical significance of the published documents.

The theoretical and closely related political errors of R. Luxemburg are being used by modern enemies of the revolutionary proletariat to fight against the Leninist general line of our party and the Comintern. The "left" social-fascists readily resort to R. Luxemburg's old erroneous positions in their struggle against the Communist Party. Trotskyism, which is the vanguard of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie, is trying to smuggle its counter-revolutionary attitudes under the banner of defending R. Luxemburg's errors. In his historical letter to the editors of "Proletarian Revolution," Comrade Stalin timely focused the party's attention on the need for a decisive rebuff and exposure of all the machinations of Trotskyist smugglers. A consistent Bolshevik criticism of the great revolutionary's errors not only does not diminish her memory, but on the contrary serves the cause for which she gave her life.
The published documents are of great value for a correct Leninist assessment and criticism of the entire concept of R. Luxemburg. The erroneous theory of realization, developed in "The Accumulation of Capital," is most closely connected with the entire system of views of Luxemburgism, which is a kind of centrism against which the Bolsheviks have always fought. R. Luxemburg's theory of accumulation is most closely connected with her errors in the peasant, national, and colonial questions, with an incorrect approach to imperialism. The notorious theory of the automatic collapse of capitalism is a direct conclusion from R. Luxemburg's theory of realization, with the help of which the "left" social-fascists are trying to traitorously distract the working class from the struggle for a revolutionary way out of the crisis.
Lenin's notes and his plan of response to R. Luxemburg's attempted criticism of Marx's theory are of exceptional value. They are logically closely connected with the struggle that Lenin had to wage on the issues of the theory of realization in the late nineties, speaking out both against the Narodnik epigones of Sismondi and against Struveism, against the then-emerging trend of Tugan-Baranovskyism.
The ideologists of Narodism V. V. (V. Vorontsov), Nikolai—on (N. Danielson) and others were representatives of petty-bourgeois romantic criticism of capitalism. Stumbling upon the contradictions


contradictions of the capitalist mode of production, they were unable to understand their real role and significance; from the contradictions inherent in capitalism, they drew reactionary utopian conclusions about the "impossibility" of capitalism. From this point of view, they approached the theory of reproduction and realization, proving the impossibility of realizing the entire social product produced by capital. On the other hand, the apologists of capitalism, at first often hiding behind the mask of "legal Marxism" — Struve, Tugan-Baranovsky, etc. — in every possible way glossed over the contradictions of the capitalist system, embellishing capitalist reality. If the Narodnik economists continued the line of petty-bourgeois criticism of capitalism, following Sismondi, then the representatives of Struveism and Tugan-Baranovskyism repeated the apologetic positions of Say, Mill, and other apostles of "harmonious" capitalism, partly trying to attribute their apologetic views to Marx, partly demanding that necessary "corrections" be made to the latter's theory. Lenin launched a decisive and irreconcilable struggle on two fronts — both against Narodnik utopianism and against the apologetics of capitalism dressed up in Marxist clothes. He brilliantly showed that the presence of contradictions in the course of the process of social reproduction under capitalism by no means means the impossibility of the latter, but, on the contrary, means the need for the historical replacement of capitalism by a new, higher system — socialism. He showed how the development of capitalism, by deepening the contradictions inherent in it, prepares the victory of the socialist revolution of the proletariat. He showed that this victory does not come spontaneously, not through the automatic collapse of capitalism due to the impossibility of realizing part of the social product, but only as a result of the rallying and organization of the conscious revolutionary forces of the proletariat, only as a result of the consistent revolutionary policy of the working class.
Lenin's notes on "The Accumulation of Capital" by R. Luxemburg are in the nature of separate, fragmentary notes made, obviously, directly while reading the book. In many cases, Lenin notes individual words and expressions from the text of the book that caught his attention. In other cases, the notes are of a more detailed nature. Even:

Lenin's briefest remarks usually very clearly and vividly characterize his attitude towards certain propositions of the book. Lenin's remarks, together with his plan for the article, provide the only correct approach to a critique of Rosa Luxemburg’s theory of accumulation and are of inestimable value for understanding the problem as a whole.
The significant majority of the remarks are written in four columns on one sheet, inscribed on both sides. The first column contains the beginning of the remarks, ending with p. 54; in the second column are located the remarks on pp. 245-294; in the third column on the reverse side of the sheet — remarks on pp. 299-540, and in the fourth — everything else to the end. On the second sheet are recorded only remarks on pp. 459-468. The outline of the response is written in ink on a separate sheet; the reverse side of the sheet is occupied by another outline, written in pencil, apparently later. The remarks are written in blue and red pencil, with large abbreviations of individual words; more detailed remarks and the outline of the response are written in ink.

For the convenience of the reader, we first provide the complete text of Lenin's notes and the outline of the article, and then in the appendix, we reproduce the remarks a second time next to those places in Rosa Luxemburg’s book to which Lenin's remarks directly relate. We do not reproduce chapters 28 and 29, to which there are also remarks, due to their large volume. Excerpts from the text "Accumulation of Capital" are given according to the fourth Russian edition of 1954, and the translation has been clarified by us in some places; the words of the German original, used by Lenin in his remarks, are inserted in the corresponding places of the Russian translation. The numbers in Lenin's remarks indicate the pages of the first German edition. The pages of the Russian edition of 1934 are placed on the margins to the right of the text.

A. Leontiev.

V. I. LENIN'S REMARKS ON ROSA LUXEMBURG’S BOOK
"ACCUMULATION OF CAPITAL"

Rosa Luxemburg
5: «eine allgemeine Incongruenz» (NB)
(crisis)
6: «von Krisen absehen» надо NB
7: «längere Periode»: crisis and uplift are balanced «wir meinen im Allgemeinen] Durchschnitt»
always
11—12: Simple reproduction in China and primitive] communism
12. Under capitalism extended reproduction acquires] «neue Charaktere».
17. «Planlosigkeit» — Krisen
[17—18 Incorrect Fragestellung: individual. This is not the Gegenstand der Untersuchung]
22—23. Quotation from Adam Smith copied from Development
NB|| of capitalism p. 11— 12
25. Capital for one, income for another]
(compare literal 24 p. Development of capitalism)
30: Quotation from Adam Smith = p. 12 Development of capitalism (5 and 50 the same quotation)
31: Quotation from Adam Smith = p. 12 Development of capitalism (!1)
159: V. Ilyin "did not notice" the real] problem in Sismondi
163. «Die Finte» of the Ricardians (forgot G: W— G —W):
not the point!
468. Sismondi should have answered Mac Culloch
Ha! [respectable — a swindler ...

Isaev!!
243: Russian Marxists: Kablukov, Manuilov!!
| ha-ha! |
244: From legal Marxists kein sozialist] (mit einer Ausnahme) ended up in the revolution on the side of the proletariat
256, Anmerkung V. Ilyin points to the relationship of
N.—ona and Sismondi
269 i. f. * Bulgakow folgt sklavisch!
to the schemes of Marx.
280. Anmerkung «im übrigen»
V. Ilyin gives «viel richtigere»!! explanation of the external market, than
Struve and
Bulgakov [unclear Orakelspruch! ]
288. Quotation from Ilyin about —
291. Grosser Irrtum
Bulgakov, Tugan-Baranovsky and Ilyin (NB)
291 i. i. «Nur der kapitalistische Ausdruck»
291—2. What nonsense!!
292: allgemeines Gesetz in all social] formations.
292 more usage of working time on
Produktionsmittel than on Konsumtionsmittel (mush).
294. Under socialism Produktionsmittel: Konsumtionsmittel grow even faster (muss).
Ill Abschnitt
299. Beginning Grundfalsch!
300. § 4 NB against R. Luxemburg]
301—2. Selection of Quotations from Marx against R. Luxemburg
304. «unerfindlich» in Marx «für wen»
305: «scheme contradicts the theory of Marx»!!
Fanatiker etc. (beginning) — Phrase-mongering.
307 i. f. the little example "doesn't add up"**.
* in fine — means at the end of the page. Ed.
** Here a sharp expression is omitted. Ed.
NB

V. I. LENIN'S REMARKS ON ROSA LUXEMBURG’S BOOK

310. in f. in Marx «direkt ausgeschlossen» ]> the increase
of I over II.
311: «schlechtwegdings nicht zu erreichen»???
313. Scheme excludes sprunghafte Erweiterung!??
contradicts III volume!!!!
314—5. Quotation from III, 1, 224 = Development of Capitalism]
p. 18—19.
317. Quotation
III,
1,
289 = [Development] of capitalism]
/7 from above
320: against Marx. N B especially і. f.
|320—321| NB «unlösbare Aufgabe».
522: «Ergänzen»!!
consumes neither the capitalist nor the worker, non-capitalist producers
325: Mehrwert from non-capitalist] producers |= B.
327: not only capitalistically!!!
328. «Capitalistic mode of production» limited] mainly to apr[o-industry that’s] Ha-ha!!
350. Impossibility] of capitalistic realisation of Mehrwert!!
332. Growth of v through increase] in population
"contradicts] the laws of accumulation"
332—3: That's the blunder!
337: The root of the error....
«undenkbar» NB|| richtiger Instinkt in Sismondi.
358: solution of the problem between oboth extremes] External market = non-capitalist] social environment!!!
340: Absatz für Mehrwert in a non-capitalist] environment nonsense
idem 343 (Mehrprodukt)
Funny! "Chapter 28: Introduction of Commodity economy".
In the beginning: "realizing" Mehrwert (p. 359, 2nd line of the chapter),----and a story about the violent introduction of opium in China!!! The story is very and very interesting, detailed: how many junks were sunk 7th IX. 1839, etc.!! Oh, scholarship!

NB
NB
[Chapter 29] Opium in China — quotation from N.—on about «bonanza farms» and so on — Boers, the torture of Negroes in South Africa, etc. Noisy, motley, and empty.
392—3. Ignorance of Marx and Engels Falsch
—394. (Essence) Nonsense
396: "conditions of capitalisation and realisation of Mehrwert (?).
Not only Mehrwert, but c+v!!
403: «Genuss» among non-capitalist] layers (railroads in Asia, etc.).
404: "Critical] illustration to the scheme of Marx"...
|nonsense: in another country, the same capital and workers consume
c and v and it doesn't change anything. The development of capitalism goes either in breadth (other countries) or in depth.|
415—1 The fall of Egypt is very good, according to Rothschild, etc.
Conclusion: «nur durch die Nilpferdpeitsche» (415). Exactly!
Rosa Luxemburg] whips herself! Not for the sake of "realizing] Mehrwert", but for the sake of convenience of exploitation
(«Peitschen», darovoy labor etc.) capital moved to wild countries. The percentage is higher! That's all.
Looting the land (for free), loans at 12-13% (410) etc. etc. — that's where the root is. (State] guarantees: 417) etc. etc.
445. і. f. natural selbstgeschaffene Schranke ended "even earlier"!!
|| 445. і. f. capitalism— "the first economic form with propaganda force"
??? — and "the first, which cannot exist without one another economic forms."

AN UNSUCCESSFUL ADDITION TO MARX'S THEORY BY ROSA
LUXEMBURG.
(S. 322)*.
Etwa:
I.
У о g 14 Jahren. Narodniki yersus Marksisty.
Lega[l'nye] Marksisty i Soialdemokraty.
II. Verdrehung bei R. Luxemburg.
III. Stellung des theoretischen Problems.
IV. Rosa Luxemburg’s [«Erganzungen»] Kritik. Antikritik.
V.
» «Erganzung». Fehlschlag.
V bis.
Nemedkaya
Sopialdemokraticheskaya pressa i «sklochka».
VI. Dialektik und Eklektik.
VII. Imperializm i realizatsiya
Mehrwert (Rothstein etc.).
[Translation]
Example:
I. 14 years ago. Narodniks versus Marxists.
Legal Marxists and Social Democrats.
II. Distortion in R. Luxemburg.
III. Formulation of the theoretical problem.
IV. [«Additions»] Rosa Luxemburg. Criticism. Anti-criticism.

*
On p. 3*22 (Russian ed. p. 244) R. Luxemburg writes about the need
to supplement (zu erganzen) Marx. Ed.

V. Rosa Luxemburg's "Supplement." Failure.
V bis. German Social Democratic press and
VI. Dialectics and eclecticism.
VII. Imperialism and the realization of surplus (Rothstein et al.).
"sklochka".
value.

Appendix.
NOTES BY V. I. LENIN WITH CORRESPONDING
EXTRACTS FROM THE BOOK BY R. LUXEMBURG
"THE ACCUMULATION OF CAPITAL".
... reproduction in capitalist society takes on a peculiar form, different
from all other historical forms of production.
First, each branch of production performs within certain limits an independent
movement, which from time to time leads to more or less prolonged interruptions in
reproduction. Secondly, deviations in reproduction in individual industries from social
needs are periodically summed up BO BeO
S'.
«eine allgemeine a general incongruity [eine allgemeine Inkongruenz]
Incongruenzy)*NB with the latter, which is followed by a general
(crisis* reproduction interruption.
... it is very important to establish from the very beginning, 8–9
that the periodic change of conjunctures and the crisis,
it is true, represent essential moments of reproduction, but not the problem
of capitalist reproduction as such.
The periodic change of conjunctures and crises are a specific form of movement in the capitalistic economy, but not the movement itself.
To represent the problem of capital istic reproduction in its pure form, we, on the contrary
to that, we must precisely abstract from the periodic
6: «von Krisen abse- change of conjunctures and crises [von Krisenabsehen].
hen»** must NB
However strange it may seem, this is still a perfectly rational method; moreover, it is, from
a scientific point of view, the only acceptable method of research.
* “general incongruity.” Ed.
** abstract from crises. Ed.

... "if you take a longer period, [eine langere Periode], a whole cycle with changing 7:
«langere
Periode»*:
crisis conjunctures, then the high conjuncture and cri- and
sis, i.e., the highest tension of reproduction with lift
equilibratedj its decline and interruption, are balanced, and
we ultimately obtain for the entire cycle a certain average value of reproduction. This average
value is not only theoretical, ideal value, but also a real,
objective fact.

... if we hereinafter speak of capitalistic reproduction, then by this all- [7.]
ways must be understood the result that is obtained as an average deduction [so ist darunter stets jener
Durchschnitt zu verstehen] from the change of conjunctures
within the cycle.

... Expanded reproduction is not an invention of capital. On the contrary, it has long
been the rule for any historical social form that exhibits economic and cultural progress. True, prosimple reproduction, i.e., a constant repetition
of the production process on the same scale, possible, and we can observe it over the course
huge periods of social development. Takovy, for example, primitive communist
village communities, in which population growth becomes possible not through gradual
expansion of production, but through perperiodic allocation of population growth and
the establishment of equally tiny and self-sufficient branch communities. Small ancient handicrafts- 11–12:
Simple manufacturing enterprises in India or China also give reproduction]
in
an example of the traditional repetition of production China and primitive
in the same forms and on the same scale, — a repetition,
tion, passing down from generation to generation. But in all such cases, simple
reproduction is the basis and watery atznak of universal economic and cultural
stagnation. All significant ugpehi of production and cultural monuments, such as the huge water
structures of the East, the Egyptian pyramids, great Roman roads, Greek arts and sciences,
that «we mean
Durchschnitt» ** always
* longer period. Ed.
** average deduction. Ed.

NOTES BY V. I. LENIN ON THE BOOK BY R. LUXEMBURG

the development of crafts and cities of the Middle Ages,
would have been impossible without expanded reproproduction, for only the gradual expansion
production beyond immediate needs and the constant growth of the population and its needs
form at the same time the economic basis and the social incentive for decisive
cultural achievements. Exchange, and with it the emergence
of class society and its historical development up to the capitalist Form-
12. With capitalism- we of economy would also be unthinkable without
me expanded] voe- expanded reproduction. But in capitalpriproduction
adds-listic society, expanded reproduction adds some new characrL
J
teristic features [einige neue Charaktere].
tere*.
. . . on the one hand, the attraction of individual capital- uj __^
tals to surplus value, competition between them, as well as the automatic action
capitalist exploitation and capitalist competition take care both of ensuring that
different goods are produced - including means of production — and that in
the disposal of the capitalist there is a growing class
proletarianized workers; on the other hand, 17.
die Planlo- the lack of planning in these connections [die Plankeit»— Krisen** losigkeit dieser Zusammenhange] is manifested in
the fact that the coordination of supply and demand is achieved
achieved in all areas only thanks to constant deviations from their point of coincidence,
thanks to hourly price fluctuations and periodic periodic fluctuations in conjunctures and crises.
From the angle of reproduction, the question is posed differently: how is it possible that it is flowing
[17–is Incorrect Fra- without any plan to supply the market with means
gesteliung ***.
individual. Not this Ge- individual. Not this Ge- individual. Not this Ge- individugenstand drerl Untersu- provide the individual capitalist with corresponding
chuncl**** needs of his accumulation - and, therefore, masses and varieties of means of production,
workers and sales opportunities? Let's consider

* new characteristic features. Ed.
** planlessness — crises. Ed.
*** posing the question. Ed.
**** subject of research. Ed.

closer to this question. Let the capitalist produce according to the Formula known to us in the following
proportion
40c + 10v + 10m, where the constant capital is four times greater
than the variable, and the rate of exploitation is equal to
100°/o.* The quantity of goods will then represent value of 60 units. Suppose that the capitalist
is able to capitalize half of his surplus value, and that he adds it
to the old capital according to its composition.
The next period of production could be expressed in such a Formula:
44c + 11v + 11m = 66.
Let us assume that the capitalist will continue to be able to capitalize half of his
surplus value, and that he can do this every year. In order for him to be able
to carry this out, it is not enough that he finds, in general,
means of production, labor forces and a region for sales, he must find them in
a certain progression, corresponding to the progress of his accumulation.»
... Here Smith becomes confused and immediately after that declares:
«Although the total value of the named annual income is distributed in this way between the different inhabitants of the country, forming
their income, but in the latter, just as in the rent of a private estate, we must distinguish
gross rent from net rent».
«The gross rent of a private estate consists of what the tenant pays; the net rent is
what remains to the landlord after deducting expenses for management, repairs,
etc., or what he can, without harm to his estate, attribute to his consumption
stock and spend on the table, on the family, on decorating the apartment, on household utensils, on
personal pleasures and amusements. His actual wealth depends not on his gross rent,
but on his net rent».
«The gross income of all the inhabitants of a large country includes the entire annual product
of land and labor, the net income is the part that remains
22 — 23. Quote from
[Adam]Smith copied from Dev[elopment of]
Capitalism]
NB Цс. 11 — 12*
* See Lenin, Collected Works, vol. III, p. 25. Ed.

V.I. LENIN'S REMARKS ON ROSA LUXEMBURG'S BOOK at their disposal, after deducting from the gross income
the expenses for maintaining, firstly, their basic capital, secondly, circulating capital,
or the part that they, without touching their capital, can attribute to their consumption
stock or spend on their maintenance, comfort, and pleasures. Their real
wealth is also proportional not to the gross but to the net income.»
... These examples lead us to the following 23-
25.
Capital for conclusion: what for one is capital, (For one), in- is for another income, and vice versa. How,
come for another (Compare under given circumstances, can the aggregate
1% p. Dev[elop- capital of society be constructed?
ment of] In fact, almost all scientific economics before Marx
Capitalism)* came to the conclusion that there is no aggregate social
capital at all. In Smith, just as in Ricardo, we still find in
this question hesitations and contradictions.
... The apogee of clarity he achieved in this regard is expressed in the following formulation: 26-'27
30: Quote from Ad[a- «Although the entire annual product of land and labor
ma [Adam] Smith = p. 12 of any country is ultimately, undoubtedly,
Development intended for the consumption of its inhabitants and for
Capitalism** to provide the latter with income, but as soon as it separates from the land that
produced it, or comes out of the hands of the productive workers, it naturally breaks down
into two parts. One of these parts – and often the largest – is intended primarily for
the restoration of capital or for the renewal of the means of subsistence, raw materials and goods
finished goods, taken from capital; the other part is intended to form an income, either for the owner
of this capital, as his profit, or for someone else, as his ground rent.
The gross income of all the inhabitants of a large country includes the entire annual product
of land and labor; the net income is the part that remains
at their disposal after deducting from their gross income
the expenses for maintaining, firstly, their basic capital, secondly, their circulating capital;
or the part that they, without touching their
* See Lenin, Collected Works, vol. III, p. 37. Ed.
** Ibid., p. 25. Ed.
Lenin Miscellany X X II

27 — 28

capital, can allocate to their consumption stock or spend on their maintenance,
comfort, and pleasures. Their actual wealth is also proportional not to their gross but
to their net income.
. .. He notes the fundamental difference between 31: quote from Ad[abasic and circulating capital from a social ma] Smith = p. 12
point of view: «All the expenses for maintaining basic development
of capitalcapital are obviously subject to exclusion ism]*
from the net income of society. Raw materials necessary
for maintaining in proper condition its useful machines,
industrial tools, buildings, etc., nor the product of labor, which is required for converting
these raw materials into the proper form, can not enter into this income as constituent parts.
The price of this labor, of course, will constitute part
of the total net income, since the workers* engaged in this area can invest their wages
in the supply intended for their immediate consumption. But in other areas
of labor, both the price and the product enter into this consumption fund; its price enters into the workers' consumption fund, and its product into the corresponding fund of other persons, whose means of livelihood,
comfort, and pleasures are increased through the labor of these workers.»
... With his arguments, Sismondi has proven that he is unable to understand the process of reproduction
as a whole. Not to mention his unsuccessful attempt to distinguish, from a social point
of view, capital and income, his theory of reproduction
suffers from the basic error that he adopted from Adam Smith, namely, from the presentation
that the entire annual product goes entirely to personal consumption, leaving no
part of its value for the renewal of constant capital of society, or, in other words,
that accumulation consists only in the transformation of capitalized surplus value into
additional variable capital. If, however, later, Ilin, «did not later critics of Sismondi, like, for example,
"notice"», the Russian Marxist Ilyin, pointing out this
fundamental basic mistake in the analysis of the total [issue] value of the entire
product, thought that from the entire theory of accumulation Sismondi
* See Lenin, Collected Works, vol. III, p. 26. Ed.

V. I. LENIN'S REMARKS ON ROSA LUXEMBURG'S BOOK

If Sismondi is dismissed as unfounded and "meaningless"
with a smile expressing the critic's superiority, they have only proven that they themselves have not noticed this problem, which, properly speaking, is what Sismondi is about.
The analysis of Marx himself subsequently proved best of all that the problem of accumulation is far from resolved with the fact of accounting for that part of the value of the entire product that corresponds to constant capital; he was the first to discover the indicated gross error of Smith. But one fact in the fate of Sismondi's theory itself proved this even more vividly. With his conception, Sismondi came into the sharpest collision with the representatives and vulgarizers of the classical school—with Ricardo, Say, and McCulloch. Both sides presented here two opposite points of view: Sismondi—the impossibility of accumulation, Ricardo, Say, and McCulloch, on the contrary,—its boundless possibilities. But, in relation to Smith's error, both sides occupied the same position: like Smith, so too his opponents, in studying reproduction, paid no attention to constant capital, and no one so pretentiously transformed Smith's confusion in the question of the decomposition of the entire product into v + m into such an unshakable dogma as Say did.

... Indeed, McCulloch's entire position stands and falls with the assertion that exchange is in reality the exchange of commodities for commodities, i.e., that every commodity creates not only supply, but also, for its part, presents demand. In this connection, the dispute takes the following form: McCulloch declares "supply and demand are expressions that are only correlative and can replace each other." The supply of one type of good determines the demand for another type of good. Thus, the demand for a given mass of agricultural products arises when, in exchange for it, a mass of industrial products is offered, the production of which cost as much as the production of agricultural
products; on the other hand, the real demand for a given mass of industrial products arises when, in exchange
for all, a mass of agricultural products is offered, which incurred the same expenses." The ruse [Die Finte] of our Ricardian is completely obvious: he wants to leave aside monetary circulation and present the matter as if goods were bought and paid for directly with goods.
From the conditions of highly developed capitalist production, he suddenly transports us to the times of primitive barter trade, which still thrives in central Africa today. The distant grain of truth in this mystification consists in the fact that money in simple commodity circulation plays only the role of an intermediary. But it is precisely the intervention of this intermediary, which in the process of circulation C — M — C (commodity — money — commodity)
[W — G — W (Ware — Geld — Ware)] separated in time and space both acts of exchange—sale and purchase—and made them independent of each other,—it is precisely this that causes the fact that any sale is by no means followed immediately by a purchase, and, secondly, that purchase and sale are by no means connected with the same persons, and only in exceptionally rare cases take place between the same "personae dramatis." But it is precisely against this that McCulloch sins: he makes an assumption that is contrary to common sense when he opposes industry and agriculture to each other as buyers and sellers at the same time. The generality of categories, which, moreover, are depicted as entering into exchange in their entirety, masks here the actual fragmentation of the social division of labor, which entails countless private acts of exchange, in which the coincidence of purchases and sales of opposing goods is a rare exception. McCulloch's simplified understanding of commodity exchange, in general, makes completely incomprehensible the economic significance of money and its appearance on the historical stage, for it directly transforms a commodity into money and ascribes to it the property of being directly exchanged for other commodities."
163. "Die Finte"* of the Ricardian
(forgot g: W — G — W)
is not the point!
132 — 3
... The question was posed as follows: what is the fate of capitalized surplus value, i.e.,
* "The Ruse." Ed.

V. I. LENIN'S REMARKS ON ROSA LUXEMBURG'S BOOK

of that surplus value that is spent not on the personal consumption of the capitalists, but on the expansion of production? And McCulloch in his answer once completely leaves aside the production of surplus value, and another time spends all the surplus value on the production of luxury goods. But who then is the buyer of the newly produced luxury goods? According to McCulloch's example, obviously, the capitalists (his Farmers and Manufacturers), since besides them in his example there are only workers. And from this it follows that we are dealing with the consumption of the entire surplus value for the personal purposes of the capitalists, or, in other words, with simple reproduction. Thus, McCulloch, to the question of the capitalization of surplus value, answers either by ignoring all surplus value, or by assuming simple reproduction at the very moment when surplus value arises, instead of accumulation. He maintains the appearance that he was speaking about expanded reproduction, as before, when considering the so-called "excess," again thanks to cunning: he first states the impossible case of capitalist production without surplus value, in order then to instill in the reader that the appearance of a surplus product is precisely the expansion of production.
Sismondi was unable to cope with these twists and turns of the Scottish werewolf. He, who until now at every step pinned his Mac to the wall and proved to him the "obvious absurdity" of his assertions, himself gets confused in an important point of the dispute. He, of course, should
468, Sismondi was on the above tirade should have answered his opponent quite
calmly: "Mr. McCulloch, most esteemed! Honor and respect for the flexibility of your
mind, but you, like an eel, are trying to slip
Ha!
honored,—J away from the very essence of the question. I keep asking: who will be the buyer of the surplus
product, if the capitalists, instead of squandering all their surplus value, apply it to the purposes of accumulation, i.e., to
expanding production? And you answer me to this: they will produce this expansion of production by increasing the manufacture of items of luxjerk...

ury, which they, of course, themselves will consume. But this is a trick. For, insofar as the capitalists spend surplus value on luxury items, they consume it, and do not accumulate it. But the point is precisely whether accumulation is possible, and not about luxury items consumed by capitalists! So, give, if you are able to do so, a direct answer to the question, or go where your
tobacco grows and your wine is extracted, and as for me, at least—where the crayfish winter!"

... Of the two main representatives of the Narodnik tendency, one, Vorontsov, known in Russia mainly for his literary pseudonym V. V. (his initials), was an original who was completely lost in political economy and to whom, as a theorist, one cannot generally relate seriously; on the contrary, the other, Nikolai —on (Danielson) was a man of broad education, a thorough connoisseur of Marxism, and also the author of the Russian translation of Volume I of *Capital* and a personal friend of Marx and Engels, with whom he maintained a lively correspondence (published in 1908, in Russian). However, it was Vorontsov who exerted a huge influence on the public opinion of the Russian intelligentsia in the 80s, and it was against him that Russian Marxism had to enter the struggle in the first place. On the question of interest to us, regarding the general possibilities of the development of capitalism, in the 90s a whole series of opponents came out against both of the above-named representatives of skepticism — a new generation of Marxists, armed with historical experience and knowledge of Western Europe: alongside Georgy Plekhanov, Professors Kablukov, Manuilov, Isaev, Skvortsov, Vladimir Ilyin, Peter Struve, Bulgakov, Professor Tugan-Baranovsky, and others appeared. In the following, we will limit ourselves mainly to the last three authors, since each of them gave a more or less complete critique of the Narodnik theory in the area of interest to us here. This, to a certain extent brilliant tournament, which kept the Russian socialist intelligentsia in suspense in the 90s and ended in an indisputable

LENIN'S REMARKS ON ROSA LUXEMBURG'S BOOK triumph of the Marxist school, opened official access to Russian science for Marxism as a historical-economic theory. *Legal* Marxism openly entrenched itself at that time in the department, in journals, and in Russian economic literature—with all the shadowy sides of this situation. Ten years later, when the possibilities of the development of Russian capitalism openly showed everyone their reverse optimistic side in the form of the revolutionary rise of the proletariat, from the named galaxy of Marxist optimists not one—with the sole exception—was any longer in the camp of the proletariat.
256. Anmerkung
... The striking similarity in the position of the Russian Narodniks with Sismondi's conception was thoroughly shown by Vladimir Ilyin in his article

... Bulgakov correctly conveys the well-known Marxist scheme of simple reproduction with comments that do credit to his mind. Then he presents the equally familiar Marxist scheme of expanded reproduction, and with this the sought-after proof is given. «On the basis of what has been said, it is not difficult to determine what accumulation will consist of. I (department of means of production) must produce surplus means of production to expand production both at home and in II, and II will supply an additional quantity of consumer goods needed to increase the variable capital of I and II. If we discard monetary mediation, then the expansion of production will be reduced to an exchange of an additional quantity of products of I, needed for II, for an additional quantity of products of II, needed for I». So, Bulgakov follows Marx's exposition exactly and completely fails to notice that his thesis still remains on paper. He thinks that he has solved the question of accumulation with the help of these mathematical formulas. That one can imagine the proportions that he copies from Marx—there is no doubt about that. It is equally certain that if the expansion of production had taken place, then it can be expressed in these formulas. But Bulgakov misses the main question: for whom does the expansion of production take place, the mechanism of which he investigates? Since accumulation can be represented on paper in mathematical proportions, it has, therefore, already taken place. Having declared the question resolved, he, however, immediately, when trying to introduce monetary circulation into the analysis, comes across the question: where do I and II get the money to buy additional products? We have seen how the sore spot in Marx's analysis—the real question of consumers for expanded production—constantly reappears in the form of the incorrectly posed question of additional monetary sources. Bulgakov here slavishly follows Marx's method of investigation and adopts the very same incorrect posing of the question, without noticing the shift to another problem contained in it.
269 i. f. Bulgakow
... Bulgakov's main argument against the skeptics—from Sismondi to Nikolai—on—who thought that it was necessary to resort to the help of external markets to realize capitalist surplus value, is that these theorists, as is known, viewed all foreign trade as a «bottomless abyss» in which the surplus of capitalist production, which does not find a market within the country, disappears without a trace. In contrast to this, Bulgakov triumphantly emphasizes that the external market is in no case an «abyss» and even less a «bottomless» one, that it represents a double-edged sword and that export is always associated with import, which more or less balances the export. Consequently, what is imported through one border is exported through another only in a modified consumer form. «For imported goods, which must constitute the equivalent of exported consumer goods, it is again necessary to find a place within the given market; this place does not exist; consequently, the appeal to the external market only entails new difficulties

*Bulgakov slavishly follows. Ed.

LENIN'S REMARKS ON ROSA LUXEMBURG'S BOOK

280. Anmerkung aim
iibrigen»* V. Ilyin gives «тієї richtigere» ** explanation of the external]
market, than
Struve and Bulg[akov.]
| (unclear])
Orakelspruch!***|
288. Quotation from Ily-
V
in.
NB
nia". In another place, he says that the outcome found by the Russian Narodniks for the realization
of surplus value in the form of foreign markets "is much less successful than the outcome found
by Malthus, Kirchmann, and Mr. V. V. (Vorontsov) himself, as the author of the article on militarism and
capitalism."
... L., p. 236. Even more decisively 214
Formulates the same view V. Ilyin: "Ro- note mantic,"—as he calls the skeptic,—"says:
capitalists cannot consume surplus value and therefore must sell it abroad. The question
arises, are the capitalists already giving away their products to foreigners for nothing, or are they throwing
them into the sea? To sell—means to receive an equivalent: to import some products—means to export
others." "Economic Studies and Essays," p.
26. For the rest, Ilyin gives a much more correct
[Im iibrigen gibt Iljin eine viel richtigere] explanation
of the role of foreign trade in a capitalist society than Struve and Bulgakov.
... We have already seen earlier what a decisive 219—20
role the "basic law" mentioned played capitalism in the dispute between Russian Marxists
and skeptics. We know Bulgakov's opinion. In the same spirit, another Marxist, already mentioned,
expresses himself in his polemic with the Narodniks
V. Ilyin:
"It is known that the law of capital development consists in the fact that constant capital increases
faster than variable capital, i.e., a larger and larger
part of newly formed capital turns to that branch of the social economy
which manufactures the means of production. Consequently, this department necessarily grows faster
than the department that manufactures consumer goods, i.e., precisely what
Sismondi declared to be "impossible," "dangerous," etc. Consequently, the products of personal consumption
in the total mass of capitalist production

* "For the rest". Ed.
** more "correct". Ed.
*** enigmatic expression. Ed.
Quotation from "A Characterization of Economic Romanticism", see
Lenin, Works, vol. II, p. 27. Ed.

III —4 tion occupy an ever smaller and smaller place.
And this fully corresponds to the historical mission of capitalism and its
specific social structure: the first consists precisely in the development of the productive forces of society
(production for production); the second excludes their utilization
by the mass of the population."
... the view that the production of means of consumption
tion does not depend on consumption, is, of course, a vulgar economic mirage of Tugan-Baranovsky. But that is the case with the
fact with which he justifies this false conclusion, i.e., that the growth of the subdivision of means of production is faster than
the growth of the subdivision of means of consumption. This
fact is completely indisputable and, moreover, not only
in relation to old industrial countries, but also in relation to all countries where technical
progress takes hold of production. On this fact rests Marx's basic law on
the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. But, despite this, or rather precisely because of this, Bulgakov,
Ilyin, and Tugan-Baranovsky are greatly mistaken, [gerade deshalb ist es ein grosser Irrtum], when they 291. Gr|"osserl Irrtum*
imagine that in this law they have revealed [глаза] the specific
nature of capitalist
K
G
*
economy, for which production is the goal in itself, and human
consumption is only a secondary circumstance.
(NB)
The growth of constant capital at the expense of variable
capital is only a capitalist expression [nur der kapitalistische Ausdruck] of the general
influences of increasing labor productivity.
The formula c > v, being translated from capitalist 291—2. What nonsense!
language into the language of the social process
*
of labor, means no more than the following: the higher the productivity of human labor,
the shorter the time it takes for a given quantity of means of production to be transformed into
a finished product. This is a universal law [ein allge- ***: allg[emeinesj
meines Gesetz] of human labor, it has force Gesetz *** in all

* Big mistake. Ed.
** "Only the capitalist expression". Ed.
*** universal law. Ed.

LENIN'S REMARKS ON ROSA LUXEMBURG'S BOOK social] formations.
292 more] use] of working] time] on Produktionsmittel* than on Konsumtionsmittel** (mishmash).
and in all pre-capitalist forms of production production and will have force in the future, under a socialist
social system. Expressed in the material use form of the aggregate
social product, this law must manifest itself in an ever-increasing application
of social labor time to production of means of production [Produktionsmittel] compared with the production of means of consumption [KonsumtioDsmiltel]. In a socialistically
organized and planned economy public economy, this process would have to
advance even faster than in modern capitalist society. First,
the application of rational scientific technology on a broad basis will be possible in agriculture
only when the restrictions private property on land are eliminated. Consequence of this will be a powerful revolution in a huge
branch of production. In the final analysis, he will lead to a colossal displacement of living
labor by machine labor and will put on the agenda technical tasks of the largest caliber—
tasks for which there are currently no proper conditions.
Secondly, the application machines in the production process in general will be
placed on a new economic basis. In at present the machine competes not with living
labor, but only with the paid part of living labor. The lower limit for the use of the machine in
capitalist production is given by the costs on the workforce it displaces. This means
that the capitalist thinks about the machine only when the cost of its production—with equal
productive capacity—is less than the wage of the workers it displaces. From the point
of view of the social process of labor,—and only a socialist society can consider
to compete not with the labor necessary for the sustenance of
workers, but with the labor they expend. This means that for a society in which the guiding
role is not the point of view of profit, but saving human labor, the application of the machine

* means of production. Ed.
** means of consumption. Ed.

if its production costs less labor than the amount of living labor it saves. We are not even talking about the fact that a machine in many cases can be applied where health and similar considerations for the benefit of workers require it, even if its application does not achieve the minimum limit of savings mentioned above. In any case, the distance between the economic applicability of a machine in a capitalist and a socialist society is at least equal to the difference between living labor and its paid part, i.e. it can be measured by the entire capitalist surplus value. It follows that with the elimination of profit interests and the introduction of social organization of labor, the boundary for the application of machines immediately moves by the entire magnitude of capitalist surplus value, a huge, immense field opens up for its victorious march. In this case, it would become clear to everyone that the capitalist mode of production, which supposedly causes the extreme development of technology, in fact creates high social barriers to the development of technology in the form of profit interests underlying it, and that the destruction of these barriers will advance technical progress with such force that the technical miracles of capitalism will seem like a child's toy in comparison with it.
If we translate this into the composition of the social product, then we have to say that this technical revolution can only mean that the production of means of production [Produktionsmittel] in a socialist society—taking working time as a unit of measurement—will grow [anwachsen muss] compared to the production of means of consumption [Konsumtionsmittel] incomparably faster than at present. Thus, the ratio between the two subdivisions of social production—a ratio with respect to which the Russian Marxists imagined that they had discovered in it a specific expression of the sin of capitalism, the neglect of the needs of human consumption— * means of production in relation to means of consumption. Ed.
(must). Ed.

V. I. LENIN'S NOTES ON R. LUXEMBURG'S BOOK

III Abschitt*
299. Beginning Grundfalsch**!
turns out, on the contrary, to be an accurate expression of the progressive conquest of nature by human labor—an expression that will be most clearly expressed when human needs are the only guiding point of view in production. By this very fact, the only proof of the "basic law" of Tugan-Baranovsky collapses as a "basic" qui pro quo; his entire construction, from which he deduces the "new theory of crises" together with the theory of "disproportionality," boils down to its paper basis—to a slavishly copied scheme of expanded reproduction from Marx.
... In the first section, we established that Marx's accumulation scheme 227 does not give any answer to the question, for whom, in fact, does expanded reproduction take place. If we take the scheme literally as it is developed at the end of the second volume, it seems that capitalist production exclusively realizes all its surplus value and consumes capitalized surplus value for its own needs. Marx confirms this with his analysis of the scheme, in which he repeatedly attempts to carry out the circulation of this scheme only with monetary means, i.e. the demand of capitalists and workers—an attempt that leads him in the end to the fact that he introduces a gold industrialist into reproduction as a deus ex machina.
... Here the following conditions for accumulation are established: 227-8
1) The surplus value to be capitalized is immediately born in the natural form of capital (as additional means of production and additional means of subsistence for the workers).
2) The expansion of capitalist production is carried out exclusively with the help of its own (capitalistically produced) means of production and means of subsistence.

*
III section [The third section of "Accumulation of Capital" is entitled "Historical conditions of accumulation"; see p. 227 of the fourth Russian edition of 1931.] Ed.
** fundamentally wrong. Ed.

228-
3) The size of the expansion of production (accumulation) is always given in advance by the size of the surplus value to be capitalized.
It cannot be more, because it is associated with the amount of means of production and means of consumption representing the surplus product, but it cannot be less, since otherwise a part of the surplus product in its natural form would not find application. Let such upward and downward deviations cause periodic fluctuations and crises, from which we must abstract here, but on average the surplus product to be capitalized and actual accumulation must cover each other.
4) Since capitalist production 300. § 4 N В против
absorbs all its surplus product, there can be no limits to the accumulation of capital.
...After his own repeated and clear statements, Marx 301-2. Selection of dicgenerally undertakes to depict the process of accumulation of all capital tations from Marx is proin a society that consists only of capitalists and workers. Places that are based on this are found in all volumes of *Capital*.
In volume I, precisely in the chapter on "the transformation of surplus value into capital," it is said:
"In order to consider the subject of our investigation in a completely pure form, regardless of the obscuring side circumstances, we must consider the entire trading world as one nation and assume that capitalist production has become established everywhere and has mastered all branches of production" (p. 543, note 21a).
In volume II, this proposal is repeatedly encountered. Thus, in chapter XVII, devoted to the circulation of surplus value, we read:
"But there are generally only two starting points—the capitalist and the worker. Third parties of all kinds must either receive money from these two classes for some services, or, since they receive money without any services on their part, they are co-owners of surplus value in the form of rent, interest, etc....
Thus, the class of capitalists remains the only starting point for monetary circulation" (pp. 303-304).

LENIN'S REMARKS ON ROSA LUXEMBURG'S BOOK

Further in the same chapter, specifically about monetary
circulation under conditions of accumulation, it is stated:
...“The difficulty arises when we assume the accumulation of monetary capital not
as a special case, but as a general phenomenon for the capitalist class. According to our assumption— under the universal and exclusive domination
of capitalist production — besides this class, there are no other classes at all, except for the working class” (pp. 318–331).
The same thing occurs again in Chapter XX:
"For here there are only two classes:
the working class, which has only its labor power, and the capitalist class, which
owns the monopoly of property in the means of production,
which includes money” (p. 392).
In Volume 3, in characterizing the process of capitalist production, taken as a
whole, Marx states very clearly:
"Let us imagine that all of society consists only of capitalists and wage laborers.
Let us further set aside the price fluctuations that prevent significant parts of the total capital
from being compensated according to their average ratios,
and which inevitably cause a general stagnation from time to time, given the universal
interdependence between the different parts of the production process, which develops in particular
thanks to credit. Let us also set aside fictitious enterprises and speculative
operations encouraged by the credit system. Then the crisis could only be explained by the disproportion
of production in different sectors and the discrepancy between the consumption of the capitalists themselves
and their accumulation. But in this state of affairs, the compensation of capital
invested in production depends mainly on the size of the consuming capacity of unproductive classes, while the consuming capacity of the workers is limited partly by the laws
of wages, and partly by the fact that workers only find employment as long as they can
be put to work with profit for the capitalist class” (Part 2, p. 21). This last
quote refers to the question of crises, which are not subject to our consideration; but it unambiguously shows that Marx, "in agreement with the actual state of affairs," places the movement of total capital in dependence only on
three categories of consumers: capitalists, workers, and "unproductive classes," i.e.,
strata adjoining the capitalist class (“king, priest, professor, prostitute, soldier”),—
strata with which he deals in Volume 2 of *Capital* with full right, as with representatives
of derivative purchasing power and, consequently, participants in the consumption
of surplus value or wages.
Finally, in "Theorien über den Mehrwert"
Vol. II, Part 2, p. 263, in the chapter "Accumulation of Capital and Crises," Marx formulates the assumptions under which he considers accumulation
as follows:
"We must only consider here those
Forms that capital goes through in its manifold further development. Undeveloped,
therefore, are those real relationships within which the actual
production process takes place. It has always been assumed
that the commodity is sold at its value. Competition of capitals has not been considered, nor have
credit and the actual structure of society, which by no means consists only of
the class of workers and industrial capitalists and where consumers, therefore, do not coincide
with producers; the first category (the category of consumers, whose incomes are partly not primary, but secondary—derived from
profit and wages) is here significantly broader than the second category of producers, and therefore
the way of expending its income and the size of the latter
cause very large modifications in the economy and especially in the process of
circulation and reproduction of capital." Consequently, here too,
where Marx is already speaking of the "actual structure
of society," he draws attention only to participants in the consumption of surplus value and wages, consequently, only to the strata adjacent to the basic capitalist categories of production.
Thus, there is no doubt that Marx wanted to depict the process of accumulation in a society consisting exclusively
of capitalists and workers, under universal and

ЗАМЕЧАНИЯ В. И. ЛЕНИНА НА КНИГУ Р. ЛЮКСЕМБУРГ
3(39 exclusive domination of the capitalist mode of production. But under these conditions, his
scheme admits of no other interpretation than production for production's sake."
...The capitalized part of surplus value, according to Marx's suggestion
in Volume 1 of *Capital*, appears immediately in the form of additional means of production and
means of subsistence for workers. Both serve to further expand production
in subdivisions I and II. For whom [Für wen] does this progressive expansion of production take place,—it is impossible to determine on the basis of the presuppositions of the Marxian scheme—
"unerfindlich"* according to Marx "fur wen"** [unerfindlich].
...So, who realizes the constantly increasing surplus value? The scheme answers:
the capitalists themselves, and only they. So what do they do with their increasing surplus value? The scheme answers: they use
it for the ever-increasing expansion of their production. These capitalists are, therefore,
fanatics [Fanatiker] of expanding production for the sake of expanding production. They build
new machines in order to build them again.
What we thus arrive at is not the accumulation of capital, but
an expanding production of means of production without any purpose, and it is only the boldness and Tugan-
Baranovsky's love of paradoxes that is inherent in taking this carousel tirelessly spinning in empty space
for a true theoretical reflection of capitalist activity and for a real conclusion
from Marx's teaching.
Apart from the outline of the analysis of expanded reproduction that
was cut short at the very beginning, which we find in the second volume of *Capital*,
Marx gave a very detailed and clear exposition of his general understanding of the characteristic
course of capitalist accumulation throughout his entire work, especially in the third volume.
And it is enough to think about this understanding to easily be convinced of the inadequacy of the scheme
given at the end of the second volume.
* "cannot be determined". Ed.
** "for whom". Ed.

If we examine the scheme of expanded reproduction precisely from the point of view of Marx's theory,
then we inevitably come to the conclusion that it is in many respects in contradiction
with this theory.

... But if we, in accordance with the actual course of things, assume that from year to year there is only a faster growth of constant capital and a slower growth of variable capital, and that we have an increasing rate of surplus value, then a discrepancy will be revealed between the material composition of the social product and the composition of the value of capital. In Marx's scheme, the acceptance for the increment of capital is not a constant ratio of constant capital to variable capital of 5:1, but a progressively increasing composition, e.g., for the second year 6:1, for the third year 7:1, for the fourth 8:1. Let us further assume that, in accordance with the higher productivity of labor, we have a continuously increasing rate of surplus value—let us assume that instead of a constant rate of surplus value of 100%, despite the relatively decreasing variable capital, we take each time the surplus value that was assumed for the corresponding years in Marx's scheme. Finally, let us proceed from the fact that each time half of the appropriated surplus value is subjected to capitalization (excluding subdivision II, which, according to Marx's assumption, in the first year capitalizes more than half, namely 184 out of 285). Then we get the following result:
First year.
I. 5000 c + 1000 v + 1000 m = 7000 (means of production)
II. 1430 c + 285 v + 285 m = 2000 (means of consumption)
Second year.
I. 54284/7 c + 10713/7 v + 1083 m = 7583
II. 15875/7 c + 3112/7 v + 316 m = 2215.
Third year.
I. 5903 c + 1139 v + 1173 m = 8215.
II. 1726 c + 331 v + 342 m = 2399, 305: «the scheme contradicts] Marx's theory»!! Fanatiker etc*.
(beginning) — Phrase-mongering.

* Fanatics and so on. Ed.

V. I. LENIN'S REMARKS ON R. LUXEMBURG'S BOOK

Fourth year.
I. 6424 c + 1205 v + 1271 m = 8900.
II. 1879 c + 350 v + 371 m = 2600.
If accumulation were to occur in this way, then a deficit in the means of production would be revealed: in the second year by 16, in the third ^ ° *^ on ^ 1, example fits".
^
by 45, in the fourth by 88. At the same time, there would be an excess of means of consumption: in the second year by 16, in the third by 45, in the fourth by 88.»
... «It is clear that a progressively increasing 238 organic composition of capital, i.e., a faster growth of constant capital compared to variable capital, must find its material expression in a faster growth of the production of means of production (subdivision I) compared to the production of means of consumption (subdivision II). But such deviations in the rate of accumulation of both subdivisions are directly excluded [direkt ausgeschlossen] by Marx's scheme, which is based on the strictest uniformity of accumulation. In itself, nothing prevents us from assuming that society, with the progress of accumulation and its technical basis, applies a continuously increasing part of capitalized surplus value to the subdivision of means of production, instead of applying it to the subdivision of means of consumption. Since both subdivisions of production represent only branches of the same aggregate social production or, if you like, parts of a single enterprise of the collective capitalist, then there is nothing to object to against the assumption of such a progressive transfer of a part of the accumulated surplus value—in accordance with technical requirements—from one subdivision to another; it also corresponds to the actual practice of capital. But this assumption is only possible insofar as we consider the surplus value intended for capitalization as a certain mass of value. However, Marx's scheme and its relations link this part of the surplus value with a certain material form intended

* "directly excluded." Ed.

directly for capitalization. Thus, the surplus value of subdivision II is presented in the form of means of consumption. And since this surplus value can only be realized by subdivision I, the intended transfer of a part of the capitalized surplus value from subdivision II to subdivision I breaks down, firstly, on the reified form of this surplus value, which subdivision I obviously cannot do anything with, and, secondly, on the exchange relations between both subdivisions, which stipulate that the transfer of a part of the surplus value in products II to I subdivision must be matched by a transfer of products I to II subdivision equal in value. Thus, within 311. r > rise] I over II.*] «schlecht- the connections of Marx's scheme, the growth of subdivision schlechterdings ni cht zu er-
I faster than the growth of subdivision II cannot be achieved [schlechterdings nicht zu erreichen]. L. Hence, however we do not consider it . ; .
the technical change in the mode of production in the process of accumulation, it cannot be carried out without violating the basic relations of Marx's scheme.
... In one place in his "Theories," Marx clearly states that he "does not consider here at all the case when more capital has been accumulated than the mass that can be applied in production, and when it, for example, lies idle in the form of money with bankers. Hence the lending of money abroad, etc." Marx points out that these phenomena relate to the chapter on competition. But it is important to establish that his scheme directly excludes the formation of this kind of excess capital.
Competition, however widely we understand this concept, obviously cannot create either values, or, consequently, capital, that are not obtained from the process of reproduction. The scheme thus excludes the
’
and so .jump the scheme thus excludes a jump
V
образное расширение [die sprunghafte Erweite- 4aeTJ sprunghalte hrобразное расширение [die sprunghafte Erweite- weit erung] **!/?
rung] of production. It only allows
* We are here quoting this part of Lenin's previous remark for the second time, as it relates to both the previous and the present context. Ed.
** in no way can be achieved. Ed.
*** jump-like expansion. Ed.

LENIN’S REMARKS ON R. LUXEMBURG’S BOOK

[313].
contradict] III volume}!!!!
314—5. Quote from
III, 1 ,2 2 4 = Development] of Capitalism] with*
4 8— 41) \ "its continuous expansion, which goes hand in hand with the formation of surplus value and rests on the identity of the realization and capitalization of surplus value.”
... Finally, the scheme contradicts the understanding 238—9
of the capitalist process taken as a whole and its course, as characterized by Marx
in Volume III of *Capital*. The basic idea of this understanding lies in the immanent contradiction between the ability of the productive force
to unlimited expansion and the limited ability to expand social consumption under capitalist relations
distribution. In Chapter 15, devoted to "the development
of internal contradictions of the law” (of the falling rate of profit), Marx gives the following detailed picture:
“Assuming the presence of the necessary means of production, i.e., sufficient accumulation
of capital, the creation of surplus value at a given rate of surplus value, therefore, at a given degree of labor exploitation,
finds its limit only in the working population, and, with a given working population, it finds
its limit only in the degree of labor exploitation.
And the capitalist production process pa the essence consists in the production of surplus
value, represented by surplus product or the corresponding part of the produced
goods, in which unpaid labor is embodied.
One should never forget that production of this surplus value - and the reverse
transformation of a part of it into capital or accumulation forms an integral part
of this surplus value production - is the direct goal and defining motivation of capitalist production. Therefore
one can never imagine it as it does not happen, namely, such production, which
has its direct goal the consumption or manufacture of consumer goods for
capitalists (and, of course, even less for workers.
R. L.). In doing so, its speciсific character, which finds
its expression in all internal relations of this production, would be completely forgotten. The extraction of this surplus

* See Lenin, Works, Vol. III, pp. 31–2. Ed.

value forms the direct process of production, for which, as we said, there are
no other limits than those indicated above.
As soon as the amount of surplus labor that can be squeezed out has materialized in
goods, surplus value is produced, but this production of surplus value
only the first act of the capitalist production process is completed - the direct proproduction process. Capital has absorbed so much
unpaid labor. With the development of the process, which
is expressed in the decline in the rate of profit, the mass of surplus value produced in this way
value reaches monstrous proportions. Those now comes the second act of the process. The entire mass
of goods, the entire product, both that part of it, which
includes constant and variable capital, so and part that represents surplus value,
must be sold. If this does not happen or if it happens only in part, or
if the goods are sold only at prices that are below production prices, then, although the worker was exploited, but this exploitation is not realized
as such for the capitalist, and there may not be any realization of the squeezed out
surplus value or only a partial one will follow realization of it, combined with the loss of part
or even all capital. Conditions of direct exploitation and conditions of its implementation
tion are not identical. They do not coincide not only only in place and time, but also in concept. First
are limited only by the productive force of society, the latter - by the proportionality of different
different branches of production and the consumptive force
society. But this is not determined by absolute productive
force and not absolute consumption ability, but consumption ability on the basis of antagonistic distribution relations, which reduce the consumption of a huge mass of society to a minimum, which changes only within more or less narrow limits.
It is further limited by the aspiration to accumulation, to increase capital and
to the production of surplus value on a growing scale. Such is the law of capitalist
production, dictated by constant revolutions in the very
methods of production, depreciation of existing capital, constantly

LENIN’S REMARKS ON R. LUXEMBURG'S BOOK

317. Quote III,
1,289 = Development of capitalism]
From bottom up]* accompanying such revolutions, universal
competitive struggle, the need to improve production and expand its size
for the sake of preservation alone and under the threat
of ruin. Therefore, the market must constantly expand, so that the interdependence of market
relations and the conditions that determine it are increasingly taking on the character of a natural law independent of producers and are less and less subject to control.
The internal contradiction seeks to find its resolution in the expansion of the external field of production. But the more the productive force develops, the more it falls into contradiction with the narrow base on which consumption rests. On this basis, full
of contradictions, it is by no means a contradiction that the phenomenon that an excess of capital is associated with a growing excess of population, because, although when joining an excess of capital with an excess of population, the mass of surplus value produced would have grown, but precisely because of this, the contradiction between the conditions under which this surplus value is produced and the conditions under which it is realized would have grown.”
... Let us give one more place from Marx, 240_1 which clearly shows that Marx was completely alien to the idea of Tugan-Baranovsky about production for the sake of production: "In addition, as we have seen (book II, department ні), there is continuous circulation between constant capital and variable capital (even leaving aside the acceleration of accumulation), a circulation which is primarily independent of personal consumption in the sense that it never enters into it, but which ultimately is limited by personal consumption, because the production of constant capital is not done for its own sake, but only because it is more consumed in those branches of production whose products enter into personal consumption.
...That Marx actually identi- 243 fied the conditions for the accumulation of all capital with the conditions for the accumulation of individual capital, he himself clearly confirms in the following passage:

* See Lenin, Works, Vol. III, p. 30.
Ed.

"The question must now be formulated thus:
assuming universal accumulation, i.e., assuming that in all branches of production capital is more or less accumulated,—and this is actually a condition of capitalist production, the motive of capitalists, as such, as well as the conviction of the person forming a treasure to accumulate money (this is also necessary for capitalist production to continue),—what are the conditions of this universal accumulation and in what does the latter consist?"
And he answers: "Consequently, the conditions for the accumulation of capital are exactly the same as for its original production and reproduction in general. But these conditions consist in the fact that part of the money is used to buy labor, and another part to buy goods (raw materials, machinery, etc.)". "Consequently, the accumulation of new capital can only occur under the same conditions under which the reproduction of existing capital occurs."
In reality, the real conditions for the accumulation of all social capital are quite different than for individual capital and simple reproduction. The problem rests on the following question: how is social reproduction formed under the condition that an increasing part of the surplus value will not be consumed by the capitalists, but spent on expanding production? The expenditure of the social product — we leave aside the compensation of constant capital — only on the consumption of workers and capitalists is excluded here in advance, and this circumstance is the most essential moment of the problem. But this also excludes the possibility of realizing the entire product by the workers and capitalists themselves. They themselves are able to realize only variable capital, the used part of constant capital, and the consumed part of surplus value; they can thus only ensure the conditions for the resumption of production on the same scale. On the contrary, the part of surplus value intended for capitalization can in no way be realized by the workers and capitalists themselves. Consequently, the realization

320: Protw Marks.
NB [Especially].

V. I. LENIN'S REMARKS ON R. LUXEMBURG'S BOOK

of surplus value for the purpose of accumulation in a society consisting only of workers and capitalists is an insoluble task [eine un- unlosbare Aufgabe]».
losbare Aufgabe» 522: «Erganzen»
Only the deepest analysis and accurate schematic representation of the process of all social production, given by Marx, namely, his brilliant elaboration of the problem of simple reproduction, — only they made it possible to reveal the pressing question of the problem of accumulation and the sore point of previous attempts to solve it. The analysis of the accumulation of all capital, which breaks off with Marx at the very beginning and over which, moreover, as mentioned, the polemic against Smith's analysis, unfavorable for the problem, dominates, directly gave no ready-made solution to the problem; on the contrary, it is hampered by the assumption of the undivided dominance of the capitalist mode of production. But precisely the entire analysis of simple reproduction in Marx and the characterization of the entire capitalist process with its internal contradictions and their development (in the III volume of "Capital") contain implicite a solution to the problem of accumulation — a solution that is consistent with the rest of Marx's doctrine, with historical experience and the daily practice of capitalism, — and thereby make it possible to supplement [zu erganzen] the study with what is lacking in the scheme. On closer inspection, the scheme of expanded reproduction itself reveals its inadequacy in all respects and points to circumstances that are outside of capitalist accumulation and production.

III
...The realization of surplus value is in fact a vital issue of capitalist accumulation. If, for the sake of simplicity, we completely leave aside the consumption fund of the capitalists, then the realization of surplus value as a first condition will require a circle of buyers outside the capitalist society. We say buyers, not consumers, because, when speaking of the realization of surplus value, we

244- "Insoluble task." Ed.
Supplement. Ed.

say nothing in advance about its material Form. The decisive thing is that surplus
value cannot be realized by workers and [322] consumes] n c
capitalists, but only by social strata capitalists] or societies that themselves do not produce cap- not
worker] italistically. In this case, two different possible
cases are conceivable. Capitalist production sup- noncap
plies means of consumption in a quantity exceed- italistic]
ing its own needs (the needs of workers and cap- pr[oitalists), and the buyers of these means of con- d]ucers
sumption are non-capitalist strata and countries.
Such, for example, is the English cotton industry, which during the first two thirds of the X IX century (and partly still now) supplied cotton fabrics to the peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie on the European continent, as well as to the peasantry of India, America, Africa, etc. Here we are dealing with the consumption of non-capitalist strata and countries, which created the basis for the colossal development of the cotton industry in England."
..."This understanding, which rests on the self-sufficient character and isolation of capi-
*1 * talistic production, as we have seen, collapses ^ on the realization of surplus value [der Mehrwert]. If we assume that in[enr
If wert surplus value is realized outside of capital- non-capitalistic
istic production, then it is already given that producers
its material Form has nothing to do with the needs of capitalist production itself. Its material Form corresponds to the needs of those non-capitalist circles that make its realization possible. Therefore, capitalist surplus value can appear either in the Form of means of consumption, such as cotton fabrics, or in the Form of means of production, such as railway materials."
...It is completely impossible to understand why all necessary means of production and means of
consumption must be produced only 327: not [only] cacapitalistically. True, it is precisely this assumption pitalistically.!
that underlies Marx's scheme of accumulation, but
* Surplus value. Ed.

V. I. LENIN’S NOTES ON R. LUXEMBURG’S BOOK

328. "Capitalistic] mode o[f
production" is limited] chiefly by "industry. Ha-ha!!
330. Impossibility]
of capitalist] realization o[f Mehr- wert!!
...it does not correspond either to the everyday practice
and history of capital, or to the specific character of this mode of production."
...In general, the capitalist mode of pro- 250 duction has hitherto been limited mainly to the industry of temperate countries, while, for example, in the east and in the
south it has made only relatively slight progress.
...The preceding examples were only to 251 elucidate the fact that, at least, the surplus value
to be capitalized [der zu kapitalisierende Mehrwert] and the corresponding part of the capitalist mass
of products cannot be realized within capitalist circles and that they
must necessarily seek buyers outside these circles — in non-capitalist producing
social strata and forms.
...In analyzing the accumulation of individual capi- 252-4
tal, Marx answers this question as follows:
"But in order to cause these elements to actually function as capital, the
capitalist class needs an additional amount of labor. If the exploitation of already employed
workers cannot be increased extensively or intensively, then, obviously, additional
labor forces must be put to work. But the very mechanism of capitalist production has also taken care of this: it reproduces the
working class, as a class, dependent on wages, the usual
level of which is sufficient not only for its self-preservation, but also for its
reproduction. These additional labor forces of various ages are annually supplied to
capital by the working class itself, so that it remains
only to combine them with the additional means of production already contained in the product
of annual production, and the transformation of surplus
value into capital is complete." The increase in variable capital here boils down
exclusively and directly to the natural growth of the working class already under
the domination of capital, thanks to reproduction.
This also corresponds exactly to the scheme of

Leninist Notebook expanded reproduction, which, according to the
assumption of Marx, recognizes capitalists and workers as the only social classes, and
capitalist production as the only and absolute mode of production. Under these
assumptions, the natural reproduction of the working class is the only source
of increasing the available labor forces that are under the control of capital. This understanding contradicts 332.
Growth v excessive the laws of motion of accumulation, however.
Natural reproduction of workers is neither in time, "Growth of
t [he] popu-
J L 1
nor quantitatively, in any relationship to the needs of accumulated capital, "contradicts] the l[a-
W]s of
Especially it is not able to keep up, as ccumulation"
Marx himself brilliantly showed, with the needs of capital arising from
its sudden expansion. Natural reproduction the working class, as the only basis
the movement of capital would exclude the process of accumulation with the periodic change of high and
low conjunctures and with the abrupt expansion of the field of production and, consequently,
would make the accumulation itself impossible. The latter should not be limited either by the growth
of variable capital, or by an element of constant capital, therefore, it must possess unlimited opportunity to dispose of the
influx of labor power. According to Marx's analysis this requirement finds its exact expression
in the formation of an "industrial reserve army of workers." True, Marx's scheme of extended
reproduction does not know this reserve army and leaves no room for it. The Industrial
reserve army cannot be formed, as a result of the natural reproduction of the capitallist wage proletariat. It needs other
social reservoirs from which labor force would flow to it; these are workers who
not formerly under the power of capital and are only drawn into the ranks
of the proletariat as needed. These additional labor forces
capitalist production can constantly draw only from non-capitalist strata and
countries. In his analysis of the industrial reserve army ("Capital", vol. I, chapter 23, p. 4), Marx
takes into account only: 1) the displacement of older workers by machines, 2) the attraction to the city
of rural workers, as a consequence of the dominance

V. I. LENIN’S NOTES ON R. LUXEMBURG’S BOOK

332-3:
That's a flaw!!!
3 3 7: The root of the error....
«imdenkbar»* NBj| of capitalist production in agriculture,
3) workers rejected by industry with
irregular occupations and, finally, 4) as the lowest stratum of relative overpopulation - pauperism. All these categories represent in
various forms elements thrown overboard capitalist production, — hired workers who have been used and laid off in one form or another. Rural workers
who constantly move to the city, according to
Marx, are also wage proletarians who were already under the power of landfarming capital, and now have only passed
into the service of industrial capital. Marx obviously had in mind the English
relations at a high stage of capitalist development. In this connection he does not consider
the question of where this urban and rural proletariat constantly flows from, and does not take into account
the most important source of this influx in the conditions of the European continent - the constant proletarization of the middle strata of the city and the countryside, the decline
of peasant farming and small-scale craft industry; he, therefore, does not take into account
precisely the constant transition of labor forces from noncapitalist conditions to capitalist ones,
as a product not of non-capitalist, but of pre-capitalistic modes of production in the progressive
process of their collapse and decomposition.
But this includes not only the decomposition of European
peasant farms and crafts, but also the decomposition of various primitive productive and social forms in countries
outside of Europe.
...The process of accumulation of capital with all its relations of value and material
relations — with its constant capital, variable capital and surplus value
— is connected with non-capitalist forms of production. The latter constitute the given historical
environment for the process of accumulation of capital.
The accumulation of capital is unthinkable [undenkbar] if we assume the exclusive and absolute dominance of the capitalist mode
of production; moreover, it is impossible without non-capitalist-

«unthinkable». Ed.

of that environment is unthinkable in any respect.
Indeed, Sismondi and his followers displayed [G337] a correct
*correct instinct Sismondi concerning the conditions of existence of accumulation,
instinct. when they reduced its difficulties solely to the realization of surplus value.

There is a significant difference between the conditions for the realization of surplus value and the conditions for the expansion of constant and variable capital in their material form. Capital cannot do without the means of production and labor power of the entire globe: for the unhindered development of its accumulation process, it needs the natural resources and labor power of all zones of the earth. But since the latter in the overwhelming majority of cases are actually under the power of pre-capitalist modes of production—and the latter are the historical environment of capital accumulation—thence arises the irresistible striving of capital to conquer the corresponding countries and societies. In essence, capitalistically cultivated rubber plantations, for example, which are already established in India, would also be suitable for capitalist production; but the actual dominance in these countries of non-capitalist social relations creates in capital the desire to subjugate these countries and societies; moreover, the primitive relations of the latter make possible such exceptionally rapid and violent methods of accumulation that would be completely unthinkable under purely capitalist social relations.

The situation is different with the realization of surplus value. It is a priori connected with non-capitalist producers and consumers, as such. Consequently, the existence of non-capitalist purchasers of surplus value is a direct condition of the existence of capital and its accumulation, and therefore a decisive question of the problem of capital accumulation.

Capitalist accumulation, as a social process, is actually linked in all respects to non-capitalist social strata and forms.
*correct instinct. Ed.

V. I. LENIN'S NOTES ON R. LUXEMBURG'S BOOK

3 38: solution of the pro blem] between both extremes
[338] external market = non-capitalist social
environment!!!
Thus, the solution to the problem, which has been debated in political economy for almost a whole century, lies between two extremes: between the petty-bourgeois skepticism of Sismondi, Kirchmann, Vorontsov, and Nikolai—on, who considered accumulation impossible, and the crude optimism of Ricardo, Say, Tugan-Baranovsky, for whom capitalism itself can endlessly fertilize itself and therefore—this is only a logical conclusion—exist eternally. The solution to the problem in the spirit of Marx's teaching lies in a dialectical contradiction: capitalist accumulation, for its movement, needs non-capitalist social formations, as the environment surrounding it; it progresses in a constant exchange of matter with these formations and can only exist as long as it finds this environment.

Based on this, one can revise the concepts of domestic and foreign trade, which play such a huge role in the theoretical dispute about the problem of accumulation. The domestic and foreign markets undoubtedly play a huge and deeply different role in the course of capitalist development, but not as concepts of political geography, but as concepts of social economics. From the point of view of capitalist production, the domestic market is the capitalist market—the production itself: both as a buyer of its own products and as a source of its own elements of production. The external market for capital is the surrounding non-capitalist social environment, which absorbs its products and supplies it with elements of production and labor power. From this point of view—the economic point of view—Germany and England in their mutual trade are primarily domestic, capitalist markets for each other, while the exchange between German industry and German peasants, as consumers and producers, represents external market relations for German capital.

...For its existence and further development, capitalism needs non-capitalist forms of production, as the surrounding
*

environment. But not all of these forms are suitable for it. It needs non-capitalist social strata, as a market for its surplus value [als Absatzmarkt fiir einen Mehrwerr], as a source of its means of production and as a reservoir of labor power for the system of wage labor.
[non-capitalist environment] nonsense
...Violence here is a direct consequence of the clash between capitalism and natural-economic formations, which set limits to its accumulation. It can do as little without their means of production and labor power as it can without their demand for its surplus product [nach seinein Mehrprodukt]. idem 343 ("Mehr- prod[ukt**]")
Funny "Chapter 28: Introduction of Commodity Economy". At the beginning: "realization" Mehrwert (S. 359,*** 2nd line of the chapter),---and a story about the violent introduction of opium in China!!!

The story is very and very interesting, detailed: how many junks were sunk on 7. IX. 1839, etc.!! Oh, scholarship!

[Ch. 29]
Opium in China is nutrition from N.—on**** about «bonanza farms*****» etc. — Boers, torture of Negroes in South Africa, etc. Noisy, colorful, meaningless.
296 —7
The general result of the struggle between capitalism and simple commodity economy is as follows: having put commodity economy in place of natural economy, capital itself takes the place of simple commodity economy. Consequently, if capitalism lives on non-capitalist formations, then, more precisely, it lives on the ruin of these formations, and if it absolutely needs a non-capitalist environment for accumulation, then it needs it as a nutrient
*Market for surplus value. Ed.
**surplus product. Ed.
***In the Russian edition, p. 272. Ed.
****In the Russian edition, p. 290, note. Ed.
*****"bonanza farms"—large-scale capitalist agricultural enterprise. See "Acc. Cap.", p. 285. Cf. N.—on. "Essays on our post-reform social economy" (1892), ch. XVI, esp. pp. 226-228. Ed.

LENIN'S NOTES ON R. LUXEMBURG'S BOOK soil; accumulation takes place at the expense of sucking its juices. From a historical point of view, capital accumulation is a process of exchange of matter between capitalist and pre-capitalist modes of production. Without pre-capitalist modes of production, accumulation cannot take place; accumulation itself, from this point of view, consists in corroding and assimilating these modes of production. Therefore, capital accumulation without non-capitalist formations is as impossible as the further existence of the latter alongside capitalist accumulation. Only in the constant progressive destruction of non-capitalist formations are the conditions for capital accumulation given.

Thus, what Marx accepted as a prerequisite for his accumulation scheme corresponds only to the objective historical tendency of the accumulation process and its theoretical ultimate result. The accumulation process tends to replace natural economy everywhere with simple commodity economy, and the latter with capitalist economy: it strives to achieve in all countries and branches the absolute dominance of capitalist production as the sole and exclusive mode of production.

But here the impasse begins. Once the final result is achieved—which is, however, a theoretical construction—accumulation becomes impossible: the realization and capitalization of surplus value turn into an insoluble problem. Marx's scheme of extended reproduction, at the moment it corresponds to reality, signifies the outcome, the historical limit of the accumulation process, and, consequently, the end of capitalist production. The impossibility of accumulation means, from a capitalist point of view, the impossibility of the further development of the productive forces and, consequently, the objective historical necessity of the collapse of capitalism. Hence follows the contradictory movement of the latter, the imperialist phase of capital, as the final period of its historical path.

Thus, Marx's scheme of extended reproduction does not correspond to the conditions of accumulation,
Leshtnsky rascal XXII t
303-5 while it is progressing: it cannot occur with the existing specific interrelationships and dependencies between the two major divisions of social production (between the division of the means of production and the division of the means of subsistence), as they are formulated in the scheme. Accumulation is not only an internal relationship between the branches of the capitalist economy: it is first and foremost a relationship between capital and the non-capitalist environment; in this environment, each of the two major branches of production can partly conduct the accumulation process independently of the other, with the movements of both branches intersecting and absorbing each other at every step. The tangled relations that follow, raz-

I) 392— Z.Nezn[achhenye in tempo and direction of the course of accumulation
II of accumulation]M[arx's]E[xpression of both subdivisions, their material relations and value relations with non-capitalist
forms of production are not amenable to precise schematic expression. Marx's accumulation scheme is only a theoretical expression for the moment when the dominance of capital reaches its ultimate limit. In this sense, it is the same kind of scientific fiction as his scheme of simple reproduction, which gives a theoretical formulation of the starting point of capitalist production. But between these two fictions lies an exact understanding of capital accumulation and its laws.
Engels] Falsch
—394.
(Essence)
Nonsense
These contradictions in the international loan system are the best indication of how much the conditions of realization and the conditions of capitalization of surplus value [des Mehrwerts]
396:
“conditions capitalization] and realization
M[ehr\- w\ert]\ /?\ д е Тт0ль1 do not coincide in time and space. The realization of surplus value requires only a general expansion of commodity production,
ch -
->
on the contrary, its capitalization requires a progressive displacement of simple commodity production by capitalist production. As a result, the realization and capitalization of surplus value are squeezed into ever narrower frameworks.
... Realized surplus value, which in England and Germany cannot be capitalized and lies there without use, NOTES BY V. I. LENIN ON R. LUXEMBURG'S BOOK is invested in Argentina, in Australia, in the Cape Land or in Mesopotamia in railways, in waterworks, in mines, etc. Machines, materials, etc. are delivered from the same country from which the capital is obtained, at the expense of which they are bought. But after all, the same is done within the country under the conditions of capitalist production: before receiving a productive designation, capital itself must buy the elements of its production and be embodied in them. True, the product is consumed here inside the country, whereas in the first case, consumption is provided to foreign countries. But the goal of capitalist production is not the consumption of products, but surplus value and accumulation. Free capital within the country did not have the opportunity to accumulate, because there was no need for an additional product. But abroad, where no capitalist production has yet developed, a new demand has arisen or been forcibly created in the environment of non-capitalist strata. It is precisely the fact that the "consumption" [der «Genuss»] of the product is transferred to others that is decisive for capital, since the consumption of a class-capitalist country — capitalists and workers — does not count in accumulation. "Consumption" [der «Genuss»] of products must in any case be realized by new consumers
403: “Genuss”* at non-capitalistic] / г
L
and paid for by them. For this, they must have strata (Railways in Asia and etc.;
funds. The latter are supplied to them in part by commodity exchange arising at the same time.
Lively trade is directly connected with railway construction and with mining (in the gold industry, etc.). It gradually realizes the capital advanced for the construction of railways or mines together with surplus value. Capital flowing abroad in this way can seek fields of activity at its own risk, as share capital; it can find application in industry or transport, entering a foreign country through the mediation of a state that concludes a foreign loan; in the first case, joint-stock companies, like bubbles, can soon fail, in the second case
* "consumption." Ed.

... the credited state may in the end turn out to be bankrupt, and capital may sometimes, in one way or another, partially disappear for its own owners, but all this does not change the matter as a whole. In this way, individual capitals often disappear during crises and in their own country. The crux of the matter is that the accumulated capital of the old country finds a new opportunity in the new country to produce and realize surplus value, i.e., to continue accumulation. The new countries encompass new large areas with subsistence economies, which are transformed into commodity economies, or with commodity economies, which are displaced by capital. Railway construction and mining (especially the gold industry), characteristic of the application of capital from old capitalist countries in young countries, have the property of causing a lively commodity exchange in the environment of the previously dominant subsistence economy; both of these branches are characteristic in the history of the economy as the beginning of the rapid decomposition of old economic formations, social crises, and the birth of modern relations, i.e., first of all commodity economy, and then capitalist production.

The role of external loans and investment of capital in foreign railway and mining shares therefore serve as the best criti- *0 "Kipitalistical"
cal illustration to Marx's scheme of accu- *r. lation. In these cases, expanded reproduction lenin. Illustration to scheme
of capital represents the capitalization of marx”... Nonsense: in another counsurplus value already realized earlier (since foreign loans and foreign shares are not covered by petty-bourgeois
and semi-proletarian savings).

The moment, the same capital circumstances and the form of realization of capital, requires]
flowing from old countries to new, have nothing to do with
nothing in common with the current field of accumulation. The not change from this. Devery same English capital that went to Argentina velopment of capitalist
for railway construction, could previously have been goes both in breadth (other
Indian opium realized in China. Further, English country]s) and in depth.
capital, building railways in Argentina, is capital of English origin
-
not only in its pure form of value as money capital: its material form — LENIN'S COMMENTS ON R. LUXEMBURG'S BOOK iron, coal, machines, etc. — also originates from England, i.e., the use form of surplus
value is already created in advance in England in the form corresponding to the purposes of accumulation. Labor power — the use form of variable capital — is here mostly foreign: the capital of old countries subordinates indigenous labor forces in new countries as a new object of exploitation. For the sake of simplicity of research, we can, however, assume that labor forces are of the same origin as capital. In reality, newly discovered gold mines, for example, cause — especially at first — mass immigration from old capitalist countries, and workers from these countries mainly work in them. We can, therefore, take the case where the money capital, means of production, and labor forces of the new country originate from the old capitalist country, say, from England. In England, in such a case, all the material prerequisites for accumulation were present: realized surplus value in the form of money capital, surplus product in productive form, and, finally, reserves of workers. But nevertheless, accumulation in England could not take place: England and its previous buyers did not need any railways or any expansion of industry. And only the rise of new areas with large regions of non-capitalist culture created an expanded circle of consumers for capital and made expanded reproduction, i.e., accumulation, possible for it.
... "Between European loan and industrial capital, as we have seen, the following deal takes place: Egyptian orders to European industrial capital are paid for by its loan capital, and the interest on one loan is covered at the expense of the capital of another loan. This deal, upon superficial examination, seems senseless, but, from the point of view of capital accumulation, its basis lies in a very rational and 'healthy' relationship. If we set aside the masking intermediary links, it turns out that European capital devoured the Egyptian peasant economy: vast expanses of land, countless labor forces, and a mass of products

ЗЗо—6 of labor, which were contributed to the state in the form of taxes, all this ultimately turned into European capital and was subjected to accumulation. It is clear that this operation, which reduced the normal course of many years of historical develop- to 2-3 decades, became possible only thanks to the whip of hippopotamus skin [nur durch die Nilpferdpeitsche] and that it was specifically * 415 — Death of Egypt is very good,
thanks to Rothstein,* etc.
Conclusion: “nur durch die
Nilpferdpeitsche” **
Exactly! She counts R. Luxemburg herself! Not for the sake of “realbecause the primitiveness of social relations of Egypt ization”
created an incomparable operational basis for capital accumulation."
of the 3 rd person, but because of the exploitative
... The more violence capital manifests, (Peitschen, gift) labor, etc.)
when it destroys through militarism passed into capital in
the existence of non-capitalist strata throughout the savage countries. The more Proworld and in its native country and worsens the visions, the greater! Here is the
conditions of existence of all working masses, the whole thing.
Plunder of land (darling), loans sooner the history of modern capitalist accumulation on the world stage turns into a continuous chain of political and social catastrophes and convulsions, which together with periodic economic catastrophes in the form of crises make the continuation of accumulation impossible; the uprising of the international working class against capitalist domination becomes a necessity even earlier than it encounters its natural, immanently created economic partitions. (12-13%) (410), etc.
etc. — here is the root.
(Governmental Guarantees: 417), etc.
445.
finished natiirlfichel selbs{frescliaf| fenel
***
Capitalism is the first economic kapitalism – form possessing propagandistic power; «first
it is a form that tends to spread threes [ystem] throughout the globe and displace all other economic forms and that tolerates no other economic forms alongside it. Form
But capitalism is the first economic with Propaform which cannot exist without other economic
forms, as its environment and nourishing soil; the tendency of capitalism to turn into a world form of
production is broken by its immanent inability to — and "the first that cannot
cover all world production. exist!
one without other [economic] forms",

* see Egypt's Ruin by Theodore Rothstein (1910). Peo.
** whip made of hippopotamus skin. Ed.
*** see Nak. kap. (IV ed. 1931), ch. 30, in particular pp. 309-314. Ed.
**** natural, self-created partitions. Ed.

INDEX OF NAMES OCCURRING IN THE TEXT OF DOCUMENTS OF “LENIN COLLECTION * X X II.
Aga hd (Ag ahd) — 104, 194, 196,220, Altman S. (Altmann S.) — 74.
Arends G. (Arends G.) — 230.
Aristophanes — 138.
Atlanticus — 226.
Ballod (Ballod) — 104, 226, 314.
Bismarck (Bismarck) — 158.
Blum — 160.
Beaulieu L. — 212.
Budde — 312.
Bulgakov — 344.
Bukharin N. I. — 160.
Böhr (Böhr) — 96.
Bücher (Bücher) — 74, 314.
Wallichs (Wallichs) — 104, 244, 251, 258, 260.
Vandervelde É. (Vandervelde) — 20.
V. V. — See Vorontsov.
Weyermann M. R. (Weyermann
M. R.) — 96.
Werner G. — 18, 26, 290.
See
Ditto — 224.
Vorontsov (V. V.) — 345.
Wossner K. (Wossner K.) — 230.
Hyndman H. (Hyndman H.) — 20.
Halle É. (Halle) — 292.
Haniel (Haniel) — 28.
Gwinner (Gwinner) — 134, 272, 294.
Heber E. (Heber E.) — 190.
Haberland (Haberland) — 140.
Hegel — 176, 178.
Hegemann C. (Hegemann C.) — 104, 238.
Heymann (Heymann) — 106, 328, 332.
Heine W. (Heine) — 20.
Helfferich (Helfferich) — 312.
German J. (German J.) — 292.

*
Names from the literature indexes are not included.
Hildebrand
G.
(Hildebrand G.) — 104, 180.
Hilferding — 335.
Glier (Glier) — 188.
Hobson (Hobson) — 104, 192, 334.
Hohenlohe (Hohenlohe) — 298.
Grunzel (Grunzel) — 146, 190.
Huke J. (Huke J.) — 64.
Hilfteeger (Hilfteeger) — 104, 240.
Huysmans K. (Huysmans K.) — 20.
Davydov — 216, 222.
Danielson (N. —on) — 344, 346.
Dernburg (Dernburg) — 272.
Deschanel P. — 170.
Gilbreth F. (Gilbreth F.) — 104, 260, 266.
George Henry — 150.
Dietzel H. (Dietzel H.) — 104, 108.
Diouritch (Diouritch) — 104, 228.
Domergue J. (Domergue J.) — 310.
Jeidels O. (Jeidels O.) — 196, 268.
Zeidl's — 52, 106, 268.
Zalewski — 42.
Seubert (Seubert) 106, 262.
Sombart (Sombart) — 148.
Ilyin V. — see Lenin V. I.
Isaev — 344.
Kablukov — 344.
Kies W. S. (Kies W. S.) — 58.
Calwer R. — 292, 334.
Cassel E. (Cassel E.) — 30.
Kautsky K. (Kautsky K.) — 20, 44, 104, 192, 252, 318, 320, 324, 334.
Kaufmann (Kaufmann) — 104, 236, 242, 326.
Kämmerer (Kämmerer) — 114.
Kästner F. (Kästner F.) — 110, 150.
Kirdorf (Kirdorf) — 28, 330.
Kleinwächter — 96.
Kleiner H. (Kleiner H.) — 128.