Having changed the Marxian conception of history into "economic determinism," and having read fatalism into it, they proceed to show their determined opposition to Marxism on the ground that it is fatal to all intelligent human activity, particularly of the "idealistic" kind. Of course, it could easily be proven that neither Marx nor the Marxists seem to have been affected by the supposed fatalism of their doctrine, and have displayed an intelligent activity and an active intelligence in all spheres of human thought and action that are truly astonishing. Nay, the most astonishing part of it is that this activity is usually of the most "idealistic" kind imaginable! But, then, the Marxists have never been consistent. It behooves us, therefore, to see what basis there is for the claim of fatalism, in the Materialistic Conception of History, and what are, according to that theory, the true possibilities and limitations of the individual member of society as a history-making factor.
And first of all as to determinism. It may be safely said that there is absolutely no warrant in anything that Marx himself wrote for the application of that term, in the sense in which it is used in this connection, to his historical theory. Neither the term itself, nor the idea for which it stands, are to be found in any of his writings. Furthermore, the idea is entirely foreign to the whole spirit of his theoretical system. While there is nothing in the idea of determinism which would make it impossible to couple it with materialism, it is nevertheless essentially part and parcel of a purely idealistic system such as Hegel's, for instance.
The same is doubly true about fatalism; to say that the man who said: "Men make their own history" was a fatalist is such an incongruity that the claim would hardly merit attention were it not for the persistence with which it is put forward. We need not depend, however, on any stray utterance of Marx in order to determine his position in the matter. We have already seen in the foregoing discussion in the body of this book, particularly in the chapter on the Proletariat and the Revolution, the stupendous task assigned to the working class in bringing about the transformation of the present capitalist society into the socialist society of the future. That this role ascribed to the proletariat is entirely in keeping with the whole theoretical system is perfectly evident to all who have examined his system with any degree of care. There is absolutely nothing in his explanation of the development of the economic con-
