It was in the Zelins Coffee House when it used to draw the entire haut intellectual crowd of Karachi. I suggested to a communist to at least read Trotskys Revolution Betrayed. He replied he would not waste his time on a man who had been rejected by the international workers movement. I wonder if he subsequently changed his mind. But what a change has now occurred; the great Soviet socialist experiment has ended not with socialism but with capitalism, and such a brutal version of it? The Stalinists had been so busy building the material basis of socialism that they forgot to change the actual socio-political relations. It was as the result of this shock at the appearance of a monster instead of a new man, that the Left began to rummage in the pile of old books to discover where it had lost track. And a lot of revolutionaries turned up, those who, after tremendous sacrifices, had been thrown on the dust-heap of history. Trotskys autobiography was translated, a few years back, into Urdu and launched with fanfare in Lahore by the old revolutionarys grandson. Antonio Gramsci had not been rejected, only set aside. But he is frequently quoted now with respect. Rosa Luxemburg, the ardent theorist and activist, who had criticised both Lenin and Marx and should therefore rightfully have been drawn, broken and quartered, luckily escaped that fate because, firstly, she had been praised warmly by Lenin and, secondly, she was assassinated by German reactionaries with the Social Democrats tacit encouragement before Stalin could attain supreme power. And it is she who seems to be coming to the top now as a sort of an early version of Che Guevara. Her theoretical works sparkle and she is frequently quoted by the modern Left. Our own quarterly, Tareekh, has devoted a whole issue to her. Everything is there - the Junius Pamphlet, her theory of revolution and, most interesting, The Accumulation, in which she pronounces Marxs theory of the reproduction of the capitalist economy as unproved. Simply put, she says that, while Marx explains adequately the simple re-production of the economy, he has failed to explain the expanded re-production in which the capital grows by absorbing the profit. Capitals expansion is possible, according to her, only if part of the new product is realised in the pre-capitalist sector at home or abroad. (Do-es it mean imperialism is built into capitalism?) Lenin apparently did not attach much importance to Luxemburgs critique of Ma-rxs schema of capitalist re-production. He only said that a capitalist economy could re-produce itself within the capitalist sector. However, Bukh-arin replied in detail to her thesis in 1925 (LImperialisme et LAccumulation du Capital.) After a lengthy explanation of Marxs thesis, Bukharin introduced money as a separate category, though, since Marx was dealing in value and the money was thus automatically taken at its gold value, there was no need now to introduce it as a separate factor to indicate that Marxs sch-ema was dynamic and not static. He also draws upon Marxs point that the capitalist class itself throws into the market the money with which to realise the surplus. As a matter of fact, it is not understood why has there been such strong objection to a part of the new product being realised in the pre-capitalist sector. Is that not true of modern-day trade between the advanced and the backward countries? In fact, where the backward countries have transited to capitalism, the unequal exchange between them and the advanced ones still takes place, but now on the basis of the inequality of wages between them. But why does Bukharin not accept Luxemburgs critique as an enrichment of Marxian theory instead of treating it as an attempt to prove it wrong? The writer is a former ambassador.