A number of attempts have been made, based in the first instance on Marx's statements, to build up on these statements a general theory of history or of society. It is on these attempts then, and not on the least bold amongst them, that Stammler bases his work, making them the starting point of his criticism and reconstruction. It may be precisely on this account that he chooses to discuss historical materialism in the form given to it by Engels,--which he calls the most complete, the _authentic_(!) statement of the principles of social materialism. He prefers this form to that of Marx, which he thinks too disconnected; and which is, indeed, less easily reduced to abstract generalities; whereas Engels was one of the first to give to historical materialism a meaning more important than its original one. To Engels, also, as is well known, is due the very name _materialism_ as applied to this view of history. We cannot, indeed, deny that the materialistic view of history has in fact developed in two directions, distinct _in kind_ if not _in practice_, viz.: (1) _a movement relating to the writing of history_, and (2) _a science_ and _philosophy of society_. Hence there is no ground for objecting to Stammler's procedure, when he confines himself to this second problem, and takes it up at the point to which he thinks that the followers of historical materialism have brought it. But it should be clearly pointed out that he does not concern himself at all with the problems of historical method. He leaves out of account that is, what, for some people--and for me amongst them--is the side of this movement of thought which is of living and scientific interest.