essay on philosophy, or in political economy, that lays any pretensions to being in the modern current of thought. There are now being published numerous periodicals—weekly, monthly, quarterly, etc.—devoted exclusively, openly or covertly, to the fighting of Marxism. This is itself, of course, one of the manifestations of the dominating influence which the teachings of Marx and his disciples have obtained over the minds of humankind: it now requires the constant efforts of a great army of intellectuals to combat, and that with very doubtful success, the progress of the teaching which less than a quarter of a century ago would have been passed by one of them as a negligible quantity in the sum total of our intellectual life.
Aside however from its volume, the tone of the anti-Marx-literature of the present day shows the change in the position of Marxism. The tone of personal hostility towards Marx, the slighting estimate of his position in the realm of thought, and of the importance of his system in the development of ideas,—which were once common to the majority of Marx critics—are almost entirely absent from this literature. On the contrary, the distinguishing feature of this anti-Marxian literature is the homage which is paid by nearly everybody to Marx the man and the thinker. More important, however, is the fact that most of the new critics of Marxism do not treat it as a new-fangled doctrine the correctness of which is yet to be proven, but, on the contrary, as the old-established and accepted doctrine which they attempt to prove false, in whole or in part, and which, they claim, must therefore be revised, supplemented or superceded. No one, however, dares openly defend the theories which Marxism has supplanted. Almost everyone admits expressly the justifiability of Marx's criticism of the theories which predominated before his advent, and that Marx's theories were correct at the time they were first stated and a proper generalization of the data then at hand. What they claim is, that later develop-
