  Luxemburg’s reading of Marx as well as her analysis of the accumulation of capital has attracted several criticisms. It became a matter of controversy already during the Second International when authors such as Bukharin and Lenin, inspired by the Austrian social democratic economist Rudolph Hilferding’s analysis of finance capital, pointed out the flaws in Luxemburg’s reading of Marx, and criticised her for holding a “teleological” view of capitalism in which the whole system is acsribed a purpose much like the component parts of it. This, they further argued, leads to a mistaken view of the accumulation of capital (see for a discussion Brewer 1990: 62–64 and Callinicos 2001: 36–42).  As a matter of Marxist exegesis, several scholars have also emphasised, that if one integrates the analysis of Capital with Marx’s other writings on colonialism, it is possible to show how Capital volume 1 already anticipated a number of critiques made by theorists of the Second International and could be productively deployed to generate a critique of imperalism not too dissimilar from Luxemburg’s (Pradella 2013). Moreover, so defenders of Marx point out, Luxemburg’s critique is methodologically flawed. While Marx intended his scheme of reproduction to be an abstract analysis which brackets away from historical constraints to illustrate the inner contraddictions in the continuous search for profit, Luxemburg conflates this philosophical abstraction with a description of historical reality. Finally , several prominent Marxist economists (e.g., Sweezy 1967) criticised her for focusing on the seemingly unorthodox premise that “consumption” rather than the realisation of surplus value is the main concern of a capitalist sytem thus conflating the question of “where does demand come from to to realise surplus value” with the question “where does the money come from to monetise profits” (see Bellofiore 2009 for a discussion and response).