We have seen in the preceding chapters that the facts relied on by Marx-critics to "refute" Marx fail them sig nally when put to the test. These facts rather tally with the Marxian theory. While, however, this may be sufficient to parry the attacks of these Marx-critics and work the discomfiture of all those who should attempt to attack Marx with the weapons of "logic" and "facts of experience," this does not furnish the highest kind of positive proof of the correctness of the Marxian theory, the proof demanded by Marx himself and his followers. Marx and the Marxists have often been reproached for being too strict and exacting. This they undoubtedly are. But first of all, with themselves, Marx has often been accused of being addicted to tedious repetitions in his writing, his critics being unable to see that Marx merely approached his subject from all justifiable points of view in order to make sure that his conclusions were correct. We have already stated before that he never rested his case on purely logical deductions. These only served him as a means of grasping and explaining the facts which must in each case supply the proof. But in looking to the facts for his proofs, he was not content merely with the ordinary facts of "experience" in the sense in which his critics understand the term. Of course, these had to tally with his conclusions before he adopted them, but they merely gave him the prima facia proof. True to his historical ideas, the real decisive proof he sought in the facts of history, or,
