In our introductory chapter, in speaking of the criticism and the critics of the Materialistic Conception of History, we have observed that the discussion of the subject was very much obscured by certain prejudices existing against that theory, which prevent any unbiased examination of the subject on its merits. This must be repeated and even emphasized with reference to the criticism of Marx's theory of value and surplus-value. It is safe to say that at least one-half of the adverse criticism of this theory contained in the literature of the subject is due to prejudice which obscures the vision of the critics and puts their thinking apparatus out of joint. This prejudice is not confined to any particular category of critics. It affects the dignified scholar and the fighting publicist alike. The great Böhm-Bawerck, head and front of the "scientific" Austrian school of political economy, and the prating "popular" Professor Masaryk are both fair specimens of it. In his great work on capital and interest,[1] where more than one hundred pages are devoted to the criticism of this theory, Böhm-Bawerck starts out his examination of the theory by characterizing it as the "theory of exploitation," and the whole trend of his argument is directed towards one objective point:—to prove that the supposedly main thesis of this theory, that the income of the capitalists is the result of exploitation, is untrue; that in reality the workingman is
- ↑ Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Capital und Kapitalzins. Innsbruck, 1900. Karl Marx and the close of his system. T. Fisher Unwin.
