Jump to content

Page:The Theoretical System of Karl Marx (1907).djvu/51

From Wikisource
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

put the "economic man" to rest in his grave, from which the opponents of Marx are now trying to raise him? As an economist he ought to know these things. But if the demise of the "economic man," and the attempts at his resuscitation have not been noted in Professor Seligman's statistical department, why didn't he inform himself of it from his friend, Professor John B. Clark?

Again, what does he mean by a "linguistic" explanation of history, and is that based on a "linguistic" relation which is the result of a "linguistic" want? What does he mean by a "religious" explanation of history, besides an "ethical" one, (whatever that may mean)? Does he mean a creed or church explanation? And does he really mean that a "scholar" can "thus legitimately" "regard past events" from such a "standpoint?" And does he really think that notwithstanding all this, there is still room for a "scientific" interpretation of history?

There are some other very interesting questions we might ask Professor Seligman, but the strands of human life being so manifold and complex, as Professor Seligman truly observes, and the Marx-critics being so many and so multifarious, we must leave him in peace, particularly as he probably meant no harm. But before leaving him we must ask him what has become of his quest for the cause which "determines the thought of humanity," with which he started out? Has he forgotten all about it? And yet, that was the question under consideration!

That was the question to be considered, if he was really anxious to find a scientific explanation of history, or, rather, if he wanted to treat history scientifically. But that is just what modern Marx-critics are extremely anxious to avoid. Hence, their plea for all sorts of "standpoints," "factors," etc., etc., which they themselves do not define or explain, but which serve the general purpose of making the scientific treatment of history impossible. In this even such extremes as Seligman and Weisengruen meet. Except that while the superficial and democratic American is "easy" with the