already explained at length in a preceding section. It is interesting to recall here, however, that we have encountered the same trouble over Marx's supposed neglect of "nature" when discussing the Materialistic Conception of History. An additional proof of the monism of the Marxian System, and of the opinion oft expressed here that all Marx-criticism suffers from the same vices.
In justice, however, to the Marx-critics, it must be stated right here that some of Marx's own adherents, or supposed adherents, suffer from a good many of these vices. We shall have occasion hereafter to treat this subject more at length. Here we want to refer only to a historical incident, which is right in point, and at once illustrates the prevalent carelessness in the choice of expressions, and Marx's quickness to "sit on them" wherever they are found, without any bias to friend or foe. In 1875 the socialists of Germany adopted a program at their national congress, held at Gotha, the opening sentence of which read: "Labor is the source of all wealth and of all culture." On learning of the contents of the draft proposed by the leaders Marx wrote a letter containing some annotations. He started out by quoting the opening sentence quoted by us above, and made it the occasion for the following remarks: "Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use-values (and it is of these that material wealth consists), as is labor, which is itself the manifestation of a natural force,—human labor power."
There are other objections to Marx's analysis. This time not to what goes into the analysis, but as to its result. In commenting on Marx's statement that aside from the use-value of their bodies, commodities have only one common property left, that of being products of labor, Böhm-Bawerk asks: "Is that really the only common property left? Have not the exchange-value-possessing "goods" still left to them, for instance, the common property of being scarce in comparison with the want for them? Or, that they are the subject of supply and demand? Or, that they
