[4] _Beiträge zur Geschichte des Materialismus_, Stuttgart, 1896. [5] See, for example, the comments upon some of Marx's statements, in the article _Progrès et développement_ in the _Devenir Social_ for March, 1896. [6] For this reason I do not, like Labriola, call the theory of the factors a _half-theory_; nor do I like the comparison with the ancient doctrine, now abandoned in physics, physiology and psychology, of physical forces, vital forces and mental faculties. [7] See a letter dated 21st September 1890, published in the Berlin review, _Der Socialistische Akademiker_, No 19, 1st October 1895. Another, dated 25th January 1894, is printed in No 20, 16th October, of the same review. [8] He even distinguishes between the _economic interpretation_ and the _materialistic view of history_. By the first term he means 'those attempts at analysis, which taking separately on the one hand the economic forms and categories, and on the other for example, law, legislation, politics, custom, proceed to study the mutual influences of the different sides of life, thus abstractly and subjectively distinguished.' By the second, on the contrary, 'the organic view of history' of the 'totality and unity of social life,' where economics itself 'is melted into the tide of a process, to appear afterwards in so many morphological stages, in each of which it forms the basis relatively to the rest which corresponds to and agrees with it.' [9] _Utopia_, L. ii (THOMÆ MORI angli _Opera_, Louvain 1566, _f._ 18.) [10] 'Hateful Force rules the world and calls itself Justice.' [11] From this point of view it is worth while to note the antipathy which leaks out in socialist writings towards Schiller, the poet of the Kantian morality æsthetically modified, who has become the favourite poet of the German middle classes. _CHAPTER II._ CONCERNING HISTORICAL MATERIALISM VIEWED AS A SCIENCE OF SOCIAL ECONOMICS _1. Relation between Professor Stammler's book on historical materialism and Marxism: Distinction between pure economics and general historical economics: Socialism not dependent on abstract sociological theory: Stammler's classification of the social sciences: His definition of society: Of social economics: Of social teleology: Nature of Stammler's social science does not provide abstract sociology: Social economics must be either pure economics applied to society or a form of history._ The attentive reader of Professor Stammler's book,[12] realises at the outset that it treats of the materialistic theory of history not as a fruitful guide to the interpretation of historical fact, but as a _science_ or _philosophy of society_.