tory of society, his position is still correct, as such views are "much more akin to historic materialism than" my own views as stated in my communication to the People. To quote the whole passage: "Comrade Boudin distorts LaMonte's proposition, attaching a meaning very remote from it, namely, that by economic conditions LaMonte means 'pecuniary interests.' But even in its garbled form, the proposition of LaMonte is much more akin to historic materialism than the 'noble-minded idealism of Boudin.'" I have committed all manner of crime by saying that Socialists are usually "idealists of the purest type" in practical life. To use his own classical language: "I am in doubt whether the Socialists will receive this as a flattery or a libel. Myself, I am inclined to retort: 'Comrade Boudin, you are another.'"
And I have sinned even more in stating that, in practical life, men are moved by a sense of justice and by ideals.
It follows from the above that the questions now at issue are:
First: Have I garbled Comrade LaMonte's article, or distorted its meaning?
Second: Does the materialistic conception of history apply to the conduct of individuals or are the factors that impel the actions of individuals the same that move societies? More particularly, is the view that individuals are moved by pecuniary interests only, "much more akin to historic materialism" than the veiw that the materialistic conception of history has nothing to do with practical idealism, and that Socialists may therefore be, and usually are, idealists in practical life? ········· I want to state right here that, for the purposes of the present discussion, it is immaterial whether this position of LaMonte is correct in itself or not. We may yet have a chance to break a lance on that score. Here the only question is whether what LaMonte and his friend say is what authoritative Socialists mean when speaking of the materialistic conception of history. In my communication to the People I expressly stated that I objected principally to LaMonte's article because he insisted that his views were those of authoritative Socialists, and that in my opinion that was not so, whatever the merits of those views may otherwise be. And this is the only thing that I intend to prove now.
Says Karl Kautsky, now the leader of Socialist thought
