the world over (Neue Zeit, XV, I 215): "I have pointed out to Bax in my reply to his article in the Zeit, that he commits the quite preposterous blunder of confusing material conditions with material interests. And what does Bax answer? Not enough that he confuses material conditions with material interests, he actually sticks to this confusion, after his attention is called to the nonsensity of interchanging these terms! Does Bax really not know what is to be understood under the material conditions of a society? The material conditions are the conditions of production,—this word taken in its most comprehensive sense. How can one insist that this is for the materialistic conception of history quite the same as the material interests of classes and nations? (We imagine Kautsky's surprise if he were to learn that here are materialists who are not content with confusing material conditions with the material interests of classes and nations, but actually confuse it with the material interests of individuals!) The difference between the two words can be seen from the following consideration: It is in my opinion possible to explain the aversion to earthly things and the longing for death of Christianity by the material conditions of the time of the Roman Empire. It were however preposterous to try to find a material interest as a cause of the longing for death!"
And again: "Others, again, throw into the same pot the animal organism and the social organism, the law of the evolution of society and of the individual and the species."
This hits the nail squarely on the head. The law of the evolution of society is not the same as the law of the evolution of the individual; and in the evolution of society even, it is not the material interests of classes or nations that is the moving power, but the material conditions, which is something quite different.
As a logical corollary of the ignorance displayed by Kautsky in the above, come his views about the role of the individual in history. Ignorant as he is of the great doctrine of "economic determinism" announced by LaMonte, which compels the individual to act in accordance with his material interests, Kautsky has the "arrogance" of expressing himself as follows on that point: "Here we come to the question what role does Man, or if you like it better, Spirit, the 'psychological impulse,' the Idea, play in history. To the idealistic philosopher the idea may have an independent existence. To us the idea is only a function of the brain, and the question whether and how the idea can
