or equivalent that is dear to him. In other words, it is not the property itself that he values or cares for, but the advantage derived from its possession; although in some cases, particularly where business is done in the old-fashioned way, and life is arranged correspondingly, there may be some love of property as such with reference to some kinds of property: usually the place of business or abode and its furnishings and belongings.
With these characteristics the bourgeois is ill-adapted to take the place of the peasant as a defender of property and of reaction. Yet, Marx considers his disappearance of considerable importance for the inauguration of the socialist state. Why?
To the vulgar materialists who insist on calling themselves Marxists this question presents no difficulty. They reduce the Materialist Conception of History to the simple formula: "everybody for his own pocket." And as the pockets of the bourgeoisie are presumably going to be injured by the transformation from capitalism to socialism, that class must necessarily be against the change, and therefore it must be removed in some way in order to pave the way for socialism. This perversion of the Materialistic Conception of History is, unfortunately, very widespread, and for good reason: It is a reproduction of the practice and theory of capitalism. Of the "common" practice, of course, but also of the very highest theory of which capitalism is capable. It is, in effect, a mere paraphrase of the "intelligent egoism"—the greatest height to which the capitalist intellect could rise. The fact that this theory can easily be proven to be logically absurd and historically false will not diminish its vogue as long as the condition to which it owes its origin remains unchanged. Only gradually, following in the wake of the economic changes, and at a distance at that, will a truer understanding force its way.
Except in the case of seers like Marx. With all his dislike for the bourgeoisie Marx never believed that all bour-
