Inevitably we are driven to the conclusion that the exhaustively economic interpretation of contemporary history is inadequate to meet the present situation.  In his suggestive book, “The Acquisitive Society,” R. H. Tawney, arrives at the conclusion that “obsession by economic issues is as local and transitory as it is repulsive and disturbing.  To future generations it will appear as pitiable as the obsession of the seventeenth century by religious quarrels appears to-day; indeed, it is less rational, since the object with which it is concerned is less important.  And it is a poison which inflames every wound and turns each trivial scratch into a malignant ulcer.  Society will not solve the particular problems of industry until that poison is expelled, and it has learned to see industry in its proper perspective.  If it is to do that it must rearrange the scale of values.  It must regard economic interests as one element in life, not as the whole of life...."(5)

In neglecting or minimizing the great factor of sex in human society, the Marxian doctrine reveals itself as no stronger than orthodox economics in guiding our way to a sound civilization.  It works within the same intellectual limitations.  Much as we are indebted to the Marxians for pointing out the injustice of modern industrialism, we should never close our eyes to the obvious limitations of their own “economic interpretation of history.”  While we must recognize the great historical value of Marx, it is now evident that his vision of the “class struggle,” of the bitter irreconcilable warfare between the capitalist and working classes was based not upon historical analysis, but upon on unconscious dramatization of a superficial aspect of capitalistic regime.

In emphasizing the conflict between the classes, Marx failed to recognize the deeper unity of the proletariat and the capitalist.  Nineteenth century capitalism had in reality engendered and cultivated the very type of working class best suited to its own purpose—­an inert, docile, irresponsible and submissive class, progressively incapable of effective and aggressive organization.  Like the economists of the Manchester school, Marx failed to recognize the interplay of human instincts in the world of industry.  All the virtues were embodied in the beloved proletariat; all the villainies in the capitalists.  The greatest asset of the capitalism of that age was, as a matter of fact, the uncontrolled breeding among the laboring classes.  The intelligent and self-conscious section of the workers was forced to bear the burden of the unemployed and the poverty-stricken.