The theory of Marx which just now is much more discussed is that commonly designated as 'the materialistic interpretation of history.' According to this theory, history is made up of successive stages, in each of which the social organization is determined by the methods of production and exchange. The ideal factors in history, such as religion and ethics, are a mere reflection of the underlying economic phenomena. Socialists themselves have been inclined to qualify, and have qualified in all their agitation this doctrine in such a way as to give a large place to the will of man. They hold that the development of society takes place in accordance with evolutionary laws, but that man himself is a part of the evolution and helps determine it. There is always, however, a marked distinction between this so-called scientific so cialism and Utopian socialism, inasmuch as sci entific socialism asserts that the will and de sires of men can be effective only in so far as they act in harmony with the general tendencies of evolution.
It is important to notice, however, that, in ac cordance with the teachings of Marx, the evolu tion of society is such as to lead inevitably to nmonopol•. Marx believed that large-scale pro duction has an advantage over small production; consequently that the large producers sooner or later must crush out the small producers, until each branch of production falls under monopo listic control. In the meantime the wage-earn ers are brought together in ever-increasingly large numbers.; they are, to use his own words, "schooled, united, and disciplined by the mechan ism of the capitalistic processes of production." The inevitable result, he held, would he such a concentration of productive wealth, and such great solidarity of the working classes. that the system would break down of its own weight, and the laborers would gain possession of the means of production.
It is to be observed that each stage in eco nomic development has its own place. Feudalism was once a suitable social organization, but in time it had to make way for capitalistic produc tion. Capitalistic production has performed a serviec which Marx recognized as clearly as a modern economist, but =Marx held that capitalis tic production has very nearly run its course, and that it has rendered the chief services of which it is capable. Marx held that "along with each decrease in the number of magnates of capi talism there goes an increasing mass of misery and degradation." Belief in the increasing mis ery of the masses was an essential part of so cialistic doctrine a generation ago; but it has to a great extent been abandoned, some socialists, like Bernstein, going so far as to claim that with capitalism there has been an increase in the economic well-being of the masses. Intelligent
socialists now clearly see that from the masses of men sunk in misery there can come no able and vigorous recruits for socialism. impor tant practiaal consequence is that socialists now are more favorably inclined to take measures which elevate the masses, even while the present social order continues, because they hold that thereby men will become better prepared for so cialism.
Another theory of Marx finds expression in what is now termed elass-conseiousness. It was, according to him, necessary that the wage-earn ers should become conscious of themselves as a class in the community having interests of their own, and that they should rely upon self-help and not upon the help of other classes for their emancipation. Class-conseiousness is now the chief test, as it is the great rallying cry of or ganized socialism. Socialists frequently make a distinction now between socialism as a system and socialism as a principle of action. This is a distinction made by Sidney Webb (q.v.). the intellectual leader of the Fabian socialists, and also by Edmond Kelly. Kelly regards socialism, or, to use his own term, collectivism, as the method of attainment of justice rather than as a condition of society in which justice has been attained. He has little concern with collectivism as "an ideally perfect state of society," but he looks upon collectivism as a principle of action, pointing out a general line of growth which seems to him desirable, and which he believes can he aided by intelligent effort. In other words, socialism in the sense in which it has been defined forms a goal which we may not succeed in reaching, but it does point out a line of action.
Let us now turn to the criticism socialism by economists. First of all, it should be noticed that no professional economist is a socialist un less it be the Italian economist Loria. Socialists claim that the opposition of all economists does not signify anything as to the correctness of socialism. They maintain that economists are generally blinded by their self-interest. their professional interests requiring them to keep aloof from socialism. The economists, on the other hand, maintain that the rejection of so cialism by economists signifies its rejection by science truly conceived.