cial and economic relations? Doesn't the learned professor know that some Marx-critics, among them his distinguished colleague Professor Barth, object to the Materialistic Conception of History because the technical development alone does not explain history? And who is right? Professor Barth, according to whom the "technical development" is all there is of Marx's explanation; or Professor Seligman, who objects to Marx's explanation because it does not include the "technical wants?" Will the gentleman kindly vouchsafe an explanation of "scientific" want, "philosophic" want, and "jural" want? What does he mean by "jural" relations? Does he mean the social relations as expressed in codes of positive law? If so, does not he know that these laws deal almost exclusively with the property relations of people, which are certainly material and economic relations; and that all the few exceptions, "deal" in "morality;" and that all jural relations are, therefore, necessarily contained in the economic and moral relations, indeed, are their expression?
What does Professor Seligman mean by suddenly, without warning or explanation, substituting "economics" for economic interpretation of history, and in talking of "economic," "economists," "utility," "value," as if the Materialistic Conception of History were an explanation of history by means of the special science known as political economy? Does he mean to say there there is any warrant in Marx even for a suggestion of this kind, or does he simply speculate on the ignorance of his readers who probably know nothing about Marx, except that he was a writer on political economy? And is that why he first changed the Materialistic Conception of History into an "Economic Interpretaton of History?" Is it all intentional confusion, or is he really so confused? And why does he tell the Marxists "that it is no longer necessary to show that the individual is impelled by other motives than the economic one," have not they themselves reiterated this for the benefit of their critics ad nauseam? And hasn't Marx himself-
