Historical Materialism and the Economics of Karl Marx | Page 5

theory of value amount means something quite different, for an
hour of one man's work may, he admits, be equal to two of another
man's. He means by amount a sum of abstract labour time units. Marx's
scientific theory of value is quite consistent with different abilities
getting different rewards, the moral contention that men should get
more reward if they work more and for no other reason is not. The
equation of work done by men of different abilities by expressing them
in abstract labour time units is essential to Marx's theory but fatal to the
moral claim sometimes founded upon it.
Further the great difficulty in allowing that it is just that men of
different abilities should have different rewards, comes from the fact
that differences of ability are of the nature of monopolies. In a pure
economic society high rewards would be given to rare ability and
although it is possible to equate work of rare ability with work of
ordinary ability by expressing both as amounts of abstract labour time
units, it surely remains true that the value is determined not by the
amount of abstract labour time congealed in it but by the law of supply
and demand. Where there are differences of ability there is some kind
of monopoly, and where there is monopoly, you cannot eliminate the
influence of the relation of supply and demand in the determination of
value. What you imagine you have eliminated by the elimination of
capital, which you can collectivise, remains obstinately in individual
differences of ability which cannot be collectivised.
But here I have entered beyond the limits of Croce's argument. His
critical appraisement of Marx's work must be left to others to judge
who have more knowledge of Marx and of economics than I can lay
claim to. I am confident only that all students of Marx whether they be
disciples or critics, will find in these essays illumination in a field
where much bitter controversy has resulted in little but confusion and
obscurity.
A. D. LINDSAY.

CHAPTER 1.
CONCERNING THE SCIENTIFIC FORM OF HISTORICAL
MATERIALISM
Historical materialism is what is called a fashionable subject. The
theory came into being fifty years ago, and for a time remained obscure
and limited; but during the last six or seven years it has rapidly attained
great fame and an extensive literature, which is daily increasing, has
grown up around it. It is not my intention to write once again the
account, already given many times, of the origin of this doctrine; nor to
restate and criticise the now well-known passages in which Marx and
Engels asserted the theory, nor the different views of its opponents, its
supporters, its exponents, and its correctors and corruptors. My object
is merely to submit to my colleagues some few remarks concerning the
doctrine, taking it in the form in which it appears in a recent book by
Professor Antonio Labriola, of the University of Rome.(1*)
For many reasons, it does not come within my province to praise
Labriola's book. But I cannot help saying as a needful explanation, that
it appears to me to be the fullest and most adequate treatment of the
question. The book is free from pedantry and learned tattle, whilst it
shows in every line signs of the author's complete knowledge of all that
has been written on the subject: a book, in short, which saves the
annoyance of controversy with erroneous and exaggerated opinions,
which in it appear as superseded. It has a grand opportunity in Italy,
where the materialistic theory of history is known almost solely in the
spurious form bestowed on it by an ingenious professor of economics,
who even pretends to be its inventor.(2*)
I
Any reader of Labriola's book who tries to obtain from it a precise
concept of the new theory of history, will reach in the first instance a
conclusion which must appear to him evident and incontestable, and
which I sum up in the following statement: 'historical materialism,

so-called, is not a philosophy of history.' Labriola does not state this
denial explicitly; it may even be granted that, in words, he sometimes
says exactly the opposite.(3*) But, if I am not mistaken, the denial is
contained implicitly in the restrictions which he places on the meaning
of the theory.
The philosophical reaction of realism overthrew the systems built up by
teleology and metaphysical dogmatism, which had limited the field of
the historian. The old philosophy of history was destroyed. And, as if in
contempt and depreciation, the phrase, 'to construct a philosophy of
history,' came to be used with the meaning: 'to construct a fanciful and
artificial and perhaps prejudiced history.'
It is true that of late books have begun to reappear actually having as
their title the 'philosophy of history.' This