reward to our readers for their patience. Besides, it will then be better appreciated. Here, we will mention only one as an example:
The Russian critic Ludwig Slonimski finds this contradiction: Marx,—he says—put up the theory that economic and class interests are the only motives of the political and legislative activity of the State, and yet he himself tells us of the praiseworthy activities of some factory inspectors, particularly Leonard Horner, who, he says, deserved well of the working class for protecting their interests![1]
Is it not really surprising that Marx is still thought of a good deal in some quarters, and that people generally refuse to accept the decision of M. Slonimski who announces that: "No matter how much the admirers and followers of Marx who believe in the scientific character of his method may protest, the truth is that he merely created a Utopia which is vulgar in its nature and is only suited to the narrow horizon of ordinary workingmen and to the notions of the imagination of those who see in the amount of pay they receive for their labor the highest blessing?"
We will also leave for future consideration the question of the "modification" of the Marxian theories at the hands of their authors, of which there is so much talk in the literature of Revisionism. These supposed "modifications" are really nothing more than an attempt to make the supposed contradictions plausible, and deserve to take their place alongside of them. We will, therefore, limit ourselves at this place to objections springing from mere confusion of terms and ideas. We want to say again, however, that the malady is so general with Marx-critics, and its ravages so extensive that it is absolutely impossible even to recount them properly, not to say analyze them all, and we will perforce be compelled to attend only to some shining examples. There are some individual writers who at least
- ↑ Ludwig Slonimski, Karl Marx' Nationaloekonomische Irrlehren. Berlin, 1897.
