Like I said I think most of what she writes in RoR is accurate, with the exception of:
which is just completely nuts historically. Marx even talks about how you already had evidence of credit existing in nomadic societies, which had ancient modes of production with easily alienable goods. Credit just like everything else tied to capitalist production is but an element of the whole to it. A fun fact actually on this subject is that Marx only managed to write Capital vol. 1 and material for others to compile and make volumes 2 and 3, but Marx originally wanted to write 6 volumes.
marxistsfr.org/archive/marx/works/1858/letters/58_02_22.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm
This would have been great since some theorists have suggested that material touching more deeply on the subject of credit would have been found in the 4th and 6th volume.
There is indeed a trend towards the decentralization of production when you factor in the advent of crisis. Marx posited the same, arguing that outside of crisis production gets more and more centralized into fewer proprietor entities, but that crisis causes this to fracture and break up again. Crisis theory and TRPF are here the key factors.
During the working day, the manager of capital puts capital to work in order to generate surplus value, i.e. a profit. Capital consists of the machinery and tools and other inanimate objects (otherwise known as constant capital or "dead-labour"). The other is variable capital, which is living-labour. The ratio between these two is called the organic composition of capital (OCC). In order to produce cheaper commodities, the OCC has to be high, that means that the functionary of capital has to spend more money on machinery in order to remain competitive, so that the amount of variable capital in the day used is less, meaning there is a bigger surplus produced. So the capitalist who is able to do this puts the other firm out of business, or they're forced to adopt the new machinery. This in turns lowers the amount of value of the thing produced (less labour is involved in it's production now), and this means that there is less profit. So capital goes from place to place with a low OCC, through competition is compelled to invest in constant capital more over variable capital, until there isn't much in the way of profit, and then move onto a new branch of industry. This in turn becomes systemic and leading to a collapse of capitalist economy, which unless the revolutionary transformation of society prevails will just start capitalist development anew, fractured and all.
I find it funny that Luxemburg came to the same view as Marx here despite invoking the underconsumptionist view in her writings in Accumulation of Capital and Neue Zeit.
She is speaking of "anarchy" here in the same way Marx spoke of capitalism as invoking "the anarchy of production", meaning chaos and turbulence. It has little to do with the State.
Is this from her text on the Russian Revolution? Please give a cituation otherwise.
Absolutely true. The only meaningful, non-temporal democracy will be the one of socialism, if we can even call such a self-evidently democratic society democratic anymore (hitherto democracy has always been a State or State-backed institution).
She is right, Bernstein was a faggot with a co-operaivist fetish. Lenin's What Is To Be Done? is also a great condemnation of his kind (the economizers of Marxism). Marx's work is not the work of an economist, it shows instead what the class struggle must amount to, and how the proletariat can achieve human self-emancipation.
Cite me one text where a revolutionary doesn't spam buzzwords like this, at least from that time.
Nope, she also gives the co-op notion a huge deathblow, and another excess nail in the coffin after Marx was done with them. She is also much more of an impossibilist than Marx here, since looking at her own time and events had shown to her that the parliamentary road to socialism is (from then on, at least) an utterly dead one.
