cociousness, and soon serve only to "extend" the seriousness of the situation.
The facts verify this reasoning. But before examining the facts we must again pay our respects to that bright light of anti-Marxian economic literature whom we have already had occasion to mention before—Prof. Tugan-Baranowsky. With that insight of the true scholar which so favorably distinguishes him from the rest of the Revisionist host he saw that the Marxian theory cannot be overthrown by such indefinite and meaningless talk as that of "adaption," "extension," or "expansion." That the Marxian theoretical edifice is too solidly built and is too finished a structure to be vulnerable to such mode of attack. That it can be successfully attacked, if at all, only at its foundation and only by using the methods employed in its construction. He therefore attempts to show by an analysis of capitalistic production that the Marxian conclusion of a necessary over-production does not follow. The result of his efforts is a theory of "distribution" of production, according to which if production is "regulated" in such a way as to always produce a certain, ever increasing, share of the total yearly product in the form of "means of production," then no over-production will ever occur. I have somewhere else shown that this theory is an utter absurdity. But nevertheless it cannot be denied that this theory is the only scholarly attempt on the part of any Revisionist to disprove the Marxian theory of crises and over-production. That Tugan-Baranowsky failed in his attempt was not his fault, but his fate. And the fact that the theory so laboriously construed by him is sheer nonsense makes his fate the more tragical. For Tugan-Baranowsky is not only an acute theoretician but also a keen observer of the facts of life. But, as I have stated somewhere else, he suffers with the malady of his age: a sickly yearning for the "ethical," and a hysterical hunt for the "practical." The yearning for the "ethical" drove him away from the "unethical" Marxian system,
