J.Davenport (1861–1931). If we want to appraise the historical position and services of these men and others like them, we must not apply modern standards of rigor, because at that time there was as yet valid excuse for those who had no conception of things that seem elementary now—such as continuity, incremental quantities, determinacy, stability, and so on. In consequence, they on the one hand struggled with difficulties that seem imaginary now, and on the other hand failed to see problems that bother us. 21 H.J. Davenport was an excellent theorist and a great teacher in his day, and the profession is under considerable obligation to him for the infinite pains he took to straighten out the fundamental problems of the theory of his time. 22 There is another interesting point about him. He was an enthusiastic Veb lenite and a strong radical of the Middle Western type who saw the evil spirits of reaction stalk both the professional and the national scene without making any effort—obviously unnecessary—to verify their existence. Davenport thus affords one of the examples that show that preoccupation with the theory of that epoch was perfectly compatible with institutionalist sympathies. The work of these and other men shades off without violent break into that part of the work of our own period that may be identified with such men as J.M.Clark, F.H.Knight, J.Viner, and A.A.Young. This pointer must suffice. 23 We must be content to glance at one of the brightest ‘patches 21 This illustrates well the sense in which, even in economics, it is possible to speak of ‘progress’ and to evaluate a given state of development meaningfully as one that is ‘lower’ than our own. This cannot be done with ‘economic thought’ in general. The economists of that time had opinions on social and economic policy that differ from those that prevail now. But this difference is due to social conditions and to Zeitgeist, and there would in fact be no sense at all in our feeling superior to them or in speaking of progress accomplished. But in matters of analysis, so far as we are trying to do the same kind of thing that the theorists of that time tried to do, it is possible to speak of progress from an inferior to a superior technique, just as there is definite sense in saying that dentistry or transportation of our time is superior to that of 1900. 22 See especially his Value and Distribution (1908), one of those books that are bound both to bore and to benefit their readers. It contains several points that are, subjectively at least, original. His Economics of Enterprise (1913), although devoted not to criticism but to construction, is really less original. I have heard of, but do not know, his manuscript on the Marshallian system, The Economics of Alfred Marshall (1935). His textbooks made no mark. But several articles of his would have to be gone into if space permitted. 23 Though there is no need to ‘introduce’ such well-known figures as the first three, I take the opportunity of saying a few words on Allyn A.Young (1876–1929). This great economist and brilliant theorist is in danger of being forgotten. A volume of essays, Economic Problems, New and Old (1927), and An Analysis of Bank Statistics for the United States (1928; first publ. in the Review of Economic Statistics, 1924–7) constitute the bulk of his published work and do not convey any idea of the width and depth of his thought and still less of what he meant to American economics and to his numerous pupils. But ex ungue leonem—that is to say, the reader may form some idea of that lion from a single claw, namely, his paper ‘Increasing Returns and Economic Progress,’ Economic Journal, December 1928. He was among the first to History of economic analysis 842 of color’ in the picture of that epoch, Patten, and then at a lonely peak, Moore. If vision were everything, Simon Patten (1852–1922)—who taught at the University of Pennsylvania from 1888 to 1917—would, historically, have to be put down as one who had few equals if any. If technique were everything, he would be nowhere. As it is he is somewhere between, standing apart on ground largely his own. He is chiefly remembered for his advocacy of protectionism—this alone was a barrier between him and the large majority of the profession—for his conception of an ‘economy of plenty,’ in which neither diminishing returns nor thrift would be of primary importance any more. This savors, on the one hand, of dilettantism, but, on the other hand, of later currents of thought, successfully anticipated. Neither impression is quite correct, but at the time the profession was inclined to take the former view of the matter, though it never failed to recognize what may be called the seminal importance of Patten’s ideas, and still less to appreciate the vigorous teacher and delightful conversationalist—breakfast with whom was apt to shade off into lunch. Henry Ludwell Moore’s (born 1869) position in the history of economics is as assured as Patten’s was among his contemporaries. To forget him in any future historical record of our science would be as easy as it would be to forget Sir William Petty. And this is as true of future economists who admire, as it is of future economists who disapprove of, every line he ever wrote. For his name is indissolubly associated with the rise of modern econometrics, which must inevitably, whether we like it or not, become more and more synonymous with technical economics. The least of his titles to lasting fame is that his work is the scientific fountainhead of the torrent of statistical demand curves that was to pour forth in the early 1930’s. The great thing was his bold attempt to create, by a number of ingenious devices, a statistically operative comparative statics (see below, ch. 7). This venture, embodied in a series of papers that he worked up into his Synthetic Economics, published in 1929, is one of those landmark achievements that are bound to stand out irrespective of whether or not we make use of them. It is therefore necessary, both in the interest of our picture of that epoch’s scientific situation and of the sociology of science, to stay for a moment in order to explain why a man of such stature did not acquire a greater reputation. For, though he got some credit for his statistical demand curves—mostly through his follower Henry Schultz—and caused some raising of eyebrows by his crop theory of cycles—an im- understand the stage of transition that economic analysis entered upon after 1900 and to shape his teaching accordingly—which, so far as I have been able to make out, may be described as a cross between Marshall’s and Walras’, with many suggestions of his own inserted. One of the reasons why his name lives only in the memory of those who knew him personally was a habit of hiding rather than of emphasizing his own points: one must, for example, be not only a specialist but also a very careful reader to realize that in his concise and unassuming analysis of national bank statistics, there is enshrined the better part of a whole theory of money and credit. proved version of the Jevonian theory—his reputation has not been what it should be to this day. The general economics of the period 843 The first reason is, of course, the nature of his work. To try to make the Walrasian system statistically operative is something that was altogether beyond that epoch’s scientific horizon. 24 The second reason was that he was a very modest and at the same time very sensitive man. His research program could have been understood, and it might even have attracted institutional support, if it had been pushed by vigorous propaganda and if it had been represented as a program of revolt against existing—‘orthodox’— theory (which, in a sense, it was). But Moore was not the man for such tactics: when he did not meet with response, he retired into himself; he was the very opposite of a high- pressure salesman. 25 But there is a third reason. Moore published indeed a series of papers that should have familiarized the profession with his thought. His first books, however, deterred rather than attracted even competent judges. In order to rate at its true value his ingenious Laws of Wages (1911), or his Economic Cycles: Their Law and Cause (1914), or his Generating Economic Cycles (1923), it is necessary to make a lot of allowances for the peculiar merit of pioneering effort. In some points, this also applies to Synthetic Economics, which was, however, internationally noticed. The route this book chalks out is, however, not only difficult but, in the age of developing alternatives, also unpopular. Nevertheless, all modern analysts should study this book with care, though it is quite possible that by so doing they will become admirers of Moore rather than followers. 8. THE MARXISTS We have occasionally observed that many economists of that period were radicals in the sense in which we use the term today. Socialism has been called an intellectual Proteus, and it is difficult to say how many of those radicals should be called—at least potential— socialists. But neither their radicalism nor their socialism is any business of ours so long as it does not involve differences in analytic approach or, to put it perhaps more tellingly, so long as it involved only different aims, sympathies, and evaluations of the capitalist economy and civilization but not a different ‘theory’ of the economic process: if we have mentioned radical or socialist convictions at all, this has been done only in order to destroy widely held prejudices against the scientific work of that time. For example, the Fabians are for us just a group that did economic research and there is no reason to separate them from other people who did the same thing on the ground that they were planners or, according to some definitions, socialists. In this section we are interested 24 His Forecasting the Yield and the Price of Cotton (1917) was not. But theorists had not yet discovered that this was economic theory. 25 I am indebted to Professor F.C.Mills for a picture of Moore’s character and ways. It is similar to the impression I received myself when meeting Moore at Columbia in 1913. [At the end of 1951, Moore was still alive and living in complete seclusion.] History of economic analysis 844 in those socialists only who professed a different and specifically socialist scientific economics. Of these, the Marxists were so much more important than were any others that we may, for our purposes, consider them as the only ones. But we shall naturally touch also upon their socialist critics whose work acquires meaning only with reference to the system criticized. The Marxists were a group or sect in more senses than one. But among other things they were also a scientific school, for, as has been explained before, dependence upon a creed, though it may affect, does not destroy the scientific character of the work of a group. It is only as a scientific school in our sense—as a group whose members did analytic work, accepted One Master and One Doctrine, and worked in close, if not always harmonious, contact—that Marxists come in here. All other aspects of Marxism— perhaps the essential ones—must be neglected. Now, scientific work done on Marxist lines, and even full mastery of the scientific contents of Marx’s work, was until about 1930 so largely confined to German and Russian writers that, for the purposes of general orientation, no others need be mentioned at all. 1 Also, as pointed out already, it was in Germany and Russia only that Marxism exerted a strong influence upon the work of non- socialist economists: for a time, theory-minded economists had in these countries hardly any choice but to turn to Marx (or, in Germany, to Rodbertus). The conquest by Marxism of the socialist part of the Russian intelligentsia was not due wholly to the strong cultural influence of Germany; it was partly due also to the fact that Marxist speculation was congenial to the Russian mind. But it was largely due to the German influence, and the relation between Russian and German Marxists remained very close (though not always amicable) in a personal sense, until Lenin’s death or even until Trotsky’s defeat. From the standpoint of analytic work done, it is only necessary to mention, among the strictly orthodox writers, Plekhanov and Bukharin. 2 But 1 This is obvious for England: nobody has as yet credited to H.M.Hyndman and his group any contribution to economic analysis. This statement does not involve denial of some influence upon the English intellectuals, though this influence was then notoriously small. Nor is it denied that Marxism became an influence in English economics later on. But an analogous statement for the Latin countries requires qualification principally because of the work done, by socialists and others, on the Marxist theory of history. No qualification is, however, involved in the recognition of the fact that Marxist ideas were more widely known and more carefully interpreted in France, Italy, and Spain than they were in England, for this did not spell any analytic work to speak of in technical economics. Japanese Marxism, also, is of later date. As regards the United States, the same holds true, but an exception should possibly be made for the writings of Daniel De Leon. See, e.g., his Reform or Revolution? (1899). 2 G.V.Plekhanov (1855–1918), the old leader of the small Marxist party of Russia and its leading figure until the beginning of this century, would deserve a very different place in a history of a different kind than we can allocate to him in this one. But in addition he was a scholar and a thinker. Though not much of an economist, he stands very high as a Marxist sociologist and, in particular, as an analyst of the socio-psychical ‘superstructure.’ This, at least, is the impression I have received from it must not be forgotten that Marxism was the chief formative influence of practically all the Russian economists of the age. Marx was the author they really tried to master, and The general economics of the period 845 the Marxist education is obvious even in the writings of those who criticized Marxism adversely. The most eminent of these semi-Marxist Marx critics was Tugan-Baranowsky who is discussed below. [(a) Marxism in Germany.] At the basis of the success in Germany are two facts: first the tremendous success of the Social Democratic party; and second the official adoption of Marxism by this party (Erfurt Program, 1891). Both these facts raise most interesting problems of political sociology into which we cannot go. But it must be emphasized on the one hand that, from the standpoint of Marxist orthodoxy, these two facts are really one, because any truly socialist party must of—presumably ‘dialectical’—necessity be Marxist; and on the other hand that, from any standpoint other than that of Marxist orthodoxy, this adoption by a party that was rapidly growing toward political responsibility of a creed that prescribed abstention from political responsibility, in capitalist society, was obviously not the only possible, but on the contrary a most astounding, course to take—a course that was bound to cause weakening dissensions within the party, as in fact it did before the century was out. Actually, however, the party did go Marxist with a will, and its huge organization offered inspiration, support, and employment—a regular career, in fact—to orthodox Marxists only and, on principle at least, to no other socialists, however devoted or radical. On this basis developed a large and able corps of intellectual adherents that produced a large orthodox literature. Besides the party newspapers, it had as an outlet a ‘heavy’ magazine, Die Neue Zeit—later on there was also the Austrian Kampf—study of which is perhaps the best method of acquiring familiarity with the group’s work. The non-Marxist socialist was something of an outcast and had a rather uphill fight that the party had plenty of means of turning into defeat. This is one side of the medal. so much of his work as is, directly or indirectly, accessible to me. See especially his Fundamental Problems of Marxism (English trans., 1929). All I know of the writings of N.I.Bukharin (1880– 1938), one of the stalwarts who were crushed by Stalin, is Der Imperialismus und die Akkumulation des Kapitals (1926), which leans heavily on the German performances to be mentioned (and really is part and parcel of the German discussion), and The Economic Theory of the Leisure Class (written 1914; English trans. 1927), a still less original performance. Some readers may miss Lenin’s name, the better part of whose voluminous writings belong to the period under survey. But Lenin was a man of action, one of the shrewdest and most clear-sighted tacticians that ever lived. It is a mistake, from the standpoint of his Russian and other admirers, to insist that, being canonized now, he must also have been a great thinker. Perhaps he did contribute something to political thought, though I find in Marx all the points he ever made in the writings that are accessible to me, with one exception: he admitted frankly what Marx never either saw or admitted, viz., that the ‘emancipation’ of the proletariat can never be achieved by the proletariat itself, a great improvement (considering all implications) of political sociology. See, e.g., State and Revolution (English trans., 1919). He did not contribute anything to economic analysis which was not anticipated by either Marx himself or the German Marxists. The same goes for Trotsky. Before looking at the other we shall see what the results were for economic analysis. It is clear from the outset that, under those circumstances, literature was bound to be apologist History of economic analysis 846 and interpretative in nature and that no substantive novelties and no substantive dissent were possible except in the guise of cautious reinterpretation of the Master’s meanings. Until his death (1895) Friedrich Engels, as the grand old man of the party, wielded an authority that was indeed challenged sometimes—by Rosa Luxemburg for instance—but never successfully or in any matter except tactics. Doctrinal leadership (with little say in practical politics) passed to Karl Kautsky (1854–1938), who had known Marx and was cut out for the role of highpriest, not least because he was not absolutely rigid and knew how to make concessions to dissent, within the inner circle of party writers, on individual points. 3 He edited the Theorien über den Mehrwert (1905–10), composed what may be called the official reply to Bernstein’s criticisms and many other pieces of apologetics and countercriticism, wrote learnedly on the economic interpretation of history, and tackled problems of applied theory, especially the question of socialist agricultural policy, thus contributing here and there even to a development of Marxist doctrine. There was nothing very original in all this. The nature of the position he had taken up from the first would have precluded originality even if he had had any spark of it. But taking Kautsky’s work as a whole, we may well speak of a historically significant performance. 4 The writers who, amidst acrimonious controversies, succeeded in working out more or less novel aspects of Marxist doctrine are usually referred to as neo-Marxists. Though the productive years of most of them fall within the period under survey, many of their publications belong to the next. We adopt, however, the same practice that we also follow in some other matters, namely, the carrying of our survey down to the present in 3 Kautsky’s association with Marx and Engels and his unquestionable loyalty were not the only qualities that recommended him for that function. No doubt, nobody can walk on stilts all his life and not look stilted. And both his adherence, in principle, to every letter of the faith, and the reinterpretations which, in actual fact, he permitted himself and others to make, reduced his popularity with ardent followers bent upon having their own innings. Also, though primarily a theorist, he was really not a good theorist, and he was no match for the keenest intellects of the group. But nothing of this should be allowed to obscure either his high character or his ability or the services he rendered to Marxism and, through Marxism, to the social sciences in general. 4 The book that contains perhaps more of what was specifically his own than does any other is his Die Agrarfrage (1899), in which he tried to extend Marx’s law of concentration to agriculture. He met criticism in his own camp, and Otto Bauer’s Sozialdemokratische Agrarpolitik (1926) is far removed from Kautsky’s views. But his work created the literature in which Bauer’s is the most notable performance. Kautsky’s—not unsuccessful—reply to Bernstein, Bernstein und das Sozialdemokratische Programm (1899); Die materialistische Geschichtsauffassung (2nd ed., 1929); exegetic work on Das Erfurter Programm (1891; English trans. under the title Class Struggle, 1910); and the article on ‘Krisentheorien’ (Die Neue Zeit, 1901–2) are probably the other publications that should be mentioned. order to relieve Part V. I select for purposes of illustration Bauer, Cunow, Grossmann, Hilferding, Luxemburg, and Sternberg. The general economics of the period 847 Of those that this choice omits I regret most of all Max Adler. 5 But this brilliant man suffered such loss of energy by his party activities and his practice of law that he was never able to do justice to his gifts, though he was an important element of the Viennese circle of Marxist theorists. Otto Bauer (1881–1938), a man of quite exceptional ability and not less exceptionally high character, was to some extent in the same predicament even before he rose to the position of leadership. But, besides the book on agrarian policy that has been mentioned already, at least his ‘Akkumulation des Kapitals,’ Die Neue Zeit, 1912–3, may be mentioned as a contribution to analysis of force and originality; many other writings are of great interest for the student of Marxist political thought. Rudolf Hilferding (1877–1941), a close friend and ally of Bauer’s, wrote a notable reply to Böhm-Bawerk’s criticism of Marx (Böhm-Bawerks Marx-Kritik, 1904; English trans. with introduction by P.M.Sweezy, 1949) and other things, which a fuller review could not pass by, but must be mentioned principally as the author of the most famous performance of the neo-Marxist group: Das Finanzkapital (1910). Whatever may be thought of the rather old-fashioned monetary theory of the first chapter and the monetary theory of crises of the fourth, its central thesis (that banks tend to gain control over industry at large and to organize the latter into monopolistic concerns that will give increasing stability to capitalism), though a hasty generalization from a phase of German developments, is interesting and original (see especially the third chapter) and had some influence upon Lenin. The one publication by H.Cunow (1862–1936) that is relevant in this connection is his series of papers ‘Zur Zusammenbruchstheorie,’ Die Neue Zeit (1898–9). Rosa Luxemburg’s (1870–1919) Gesammelte Werke were published in 1925– 8, but her most important contribution to Marxist theory is Die Akkumulation des Kapitals…(with the subtitle: Contribution to the Economic Explanation of Imperialism, 1912). [P. M.Sweezy has pointed out to me that there is a second book with the same title (but different subtitle) written in answer to her critics while she was in prison during the war and published in 1921. Ed.] H.Grossmann (Das Akkumulations- und Zusammenbruchsgesetz des kapitalistischen Systems, 1929) and Fritz Sternberg (Der Imperialismus, 1926) represent a younger generation. The first is chiefly a Marxist scholar. The latter, who recently published a highly successful book (The Coming Crisis, 1947), is less concerned with Marxist theory but tries rather to write what he believes Marx would write were he alive today. Their works fall in with the Marxist revival to be noticed presently. Most of the titles mentioned point toward a goal that, in spite of their violent altercations, the neo-Marxists have in common. Identifying, in the true Marxist spirit, thought and action, theory and politics, they were primarily interested in those parts of the Marxist system that have, or seem to have, direct bearing upon socialist tactics in what they believe to be the last—the ‘imperialist’—phase of capitalism. 6 Accordingly, they were but mildly 5 Not to be confused with Victor Adler, the leader who unified (for a time) the various national sectors of Austrian socialism, and Fritz Adler, the son of Victor, who was to gain notoriety of a different kind in and after the First World War. 6 This holds for all of them, although to very different degrees. And this is the point of contact with Leninist and Trotskyite doctrine, which turned completely on Imperialism. Comparison of the ideas of say Bauer and Hilferding with the ideas History of economic analysis 848 interested in Hegelian dialectics, the labor theory of value, and such questions as whether or not it is possible to transform Marx’s values into ‘production prices’ without altering the sum total of surplus value. All the more interested were they in ‘imperialism’ and in the problem of the breakdown of capitalism, hence in the theory of accumulation, of crises, and of increasing misery. It is impossible to do justice to the widely different features of the more or less ingenious systems of the individual writers. Very broadly speaking, the upshot was this. They were relatively successful in elaborating an economic theory of protection and of a, real or alleged, tendency of capitalist society to develop an increasing propensity to wage wars. Neither exposition nor criticism can be attempted here. 7 But critics who feel inclined to be too severe on this theory should remember what sort of arguments it is intended to replace: it may be wrong, but it constitutes the first attempt to look at the phenomenon in something like a scientific spirit. The increasing misery was either discarded silently or deferred to some indefinite future when counteracting factors would have spent their force (compare, for example, Sternberg’s theory of the ‘closed season’ during which that tendency is suspended). The modus operandi of accumulation and the breakdown theory provided the battleground that was most hotly contested. And here the most sensational event was Hilferding’s frank renunciation of the breakdown theory: he even contended that capitalist society, if left to itself, would increasingly consolidate its position and petrify into a sort of feudal or ‘hierarchic’ organization. Naturally, this was high treason to some. But even those or some of those who rejected Hilferding’s theory watered down Marx’s spectacular breakdown—for, if words mean anything, this is what Marx envisaged—to a mere inability of capitalist society to keep up its traditional rate of accumulation, which means little more than the settling down into a stationary state that was envisaged by Ricardo and hardly corresponds to the ideas evoked by the word Breakdown. 8 [(b) Revisionism and the Marxist Revival.] Before going on, let us glance at the other side of the medal, Revisionism. As has been observed, it was not to be expected that so large a party, with so large a fringe of sympathizers, would indefinitely accept such doctrinal discipline as the strict Marxists insisted on imposing. It was indifference to philosophical and theoretical minutiae rather than acceptance of them that secured the passing of the Erfurt reso- expounded in Lenin’s Imperialism (English trans., 1933) is instructive, the more so because, in other respects, the neo-Marxists were anti-Bolshevik. [Two long essays in German by J.A.S. (originally publ. in 1919 and 1927), the first of which attacked these neo-Marxist views, have been translated into English under the title, Imperialism and Social Classes (1951).] 7 The reader will find an extremely orthodox exposition of this line of reasoning in P.M.Sweezy’s Theory of Capitalist Development, already referred to. 8 The work of Hilferding and Luxemburg has been briefly but admirably discussed by Eduard Heimann in History of Economic Doctrines (1945). lutions. Retribution came when Bernstein, 9 a man of sufficient importance who was not indifferent to doctrine and who, moreover, believed the Marxist creed to be injurious to the party, made up his mind to risk frontal attack. ‘Dialectics,’ historical materialism, The general economics of the period 849 class struggle, labor theory, increasing misery, concentration, breakdown (including the revolutionary ideology), all came in for wholesale condemnation at his hands. We are not interested in the ensuing row, or in the tactics of August Bebel, the man in supreme command, who, like the good tactician he was, displayed at first the requisite amount of wrath, then accepted formal submission without going to extremes—though minor lights were penalized in various ways—and finally acquiesced in a state of things in which revisionism was allowed in the party on condition of refraining from active hostility. Nor are we interested in the facts that several outstanding party men were or became revisionists, that the wing acquired its own periodical (Sozialistische Monatshefte) and its own writers. For though some of these writers did creditable work, especially on individual practical questions—as did, for example, Schippel on foreign-trade policy— this work inevitably lost most of its distinctive color. All we are interested in is the question what net results the revisionist controversy produced for Marxist analysis. It is safe to say that Bernstein’s attack had a stimulating effect and produced here and there better and more careful formulations. Perhaps it had also something to do with the increasing readiness of Marxists to jettison prophecies of spectacular misery and breakdown. On the whole, however, results cannot be rated very highly so far as the scientific position of the Marxists is concerned. For on analysis, Bernstein’s attack proves to have been much weaker than one would infer from its effects on the party and on the general public. Bernstein was an admirable man but he was no profound thinker and especially no theorist. In some points, especially as regards the economic interpretation of history and the concentration of economic power, his argument was distinctly shallow. In others, he proffered the sort of common sense that any bourgeois radical might have produced. Kautsky was, if anything, more than equal to the task of answering him. And if it had not been for the political implication of the attention he got, Marxists need not have worried greatly about him. We go on to notice two phenomena that belong to later times. Marxist analysis displayed few, if any, symptoms of decay before 1914. The contrary assertion was often made, of course, but only by writers with whom the wish was father to the thought. But during the 1920’s we observe a phenomenon that was scientifically much more important than revisionism had been: we find an increasing number of socialist economists—some of them quite radical in politics and not all revisionist or ‘laborist’ in the political sense— who, while professing the utmost respect for Marx, nevertheless began to realize 9 Eduard Bernstein (1850–1932) was a tried socialist, besides being a scholar and a delightful man, and carried weight as one of the old guard. But years of exile did not radicalize him. They fabianized him. Of his writings, only his book of 1899 need be mentioned. It is available in English under the title Evolutionary Socialism (1909). that his pure economics had become obsolete. Marxism remained their creed, and Marxist remained their allegiance, but in purely economic matters they began to argue like non- History of economic analysis 850 Marxists. To put it differently, they learned the truth that economic theory is a technique of reasoning; that such a technique is neutral by nature and that it is a mistake to believe that something is to be gained for socialism by fighting for the Marxist or against the marginal utility theory of value; that no technique can be exempt from obsolescence; and that the literary defense of the cause of socialism stands to lose efficiency by clinging to outworn tools. The importance of this for the evolution of a genuinely scientific economics cannot be estimated too highly: here was at last a recognition, by the group most averse to this recognition, of the existence of a piece of ground on which it was possible to build objectively scientific structures. For the 1920’s this tendency may be represented by the names of Lederer and Dobb, both of whom also exemplify the fact that political ardors need not suffer by that recognition in the least: 10 with neither of them was it a matter of watering down practical issues; with both of them it was a matter of logic. This gain was not quite lost in the turmoil of the 1930’s. It may still be averred that, in spite of the Marxist revival we observe, the scientifically trained socialist is no longer a Marxist except in matters of economic sociology. The names of O.Lange and A.P.Lerner may be invoked as illustration. 11 The other phenomenon we have to notice is precisely that Marxist revival. The sociology of it is too obvious to detain us. But there are three aspects of it that deserve attention from our own standpoint. First, though the gain for analysis of the tendency just referred to has not been quite lost of late—as our illustrative examples show—it has been lost in part: economists of high standing have turned Marxists, not in the sense of accepting Marx’s social or political message—this would be their affair—nor in the sense that they (like Lange) accept much or all of Marx’s economic sociology—this would be capable of defense—nor finally in the sense that they pay respect to Marx’s historical greatness—few people would quarrel with them about this—but in the sense that they actually try to revitalize Marx’s pure economics, thus joining forces with the surviving neo-Marxists. The outstanding examples are P.M. 10 Emil Lederer (1882–1939) who, during the last years of his life, was a member of the Graduate Faculty of Political and Social Science of the New School for Social Research in New York, may be described as the leading academic socialist of Germany in the 1920’s and was an influential teacher in the Universities of Heidelberg and Berlin. His little textbook (Grundzüge der ökonomischen Theorie, 1922) displays the tendency in question very well. Maurice Dobb was never impregnated with Marxism; allowance must be made for the English environment. But his sympathies, intellectual and other, are obviously with Marx rather than with Marshall or with the Fabians. Nevertheless, he cannot be described as a Marxist so far as economic analysis is concerned. See his Capitalist Enterprise and Social Progress (1925). 11 O.Lange made the position in question very clear in his paper on ‘Marxian Economics and Modern Economic Theory,’ Review of Economic Studies, June 1935, to which I refer the reader. Sweezy and J.Robinson. 12 Second, there are the attempts to Keynesify Marx or to Marxify Keynes. These attempts are very revelatory of prevailing ideologies but also indicate awareness of a purely analytic task. It is in fact possible to enrich the meanings The general economics of the period 851 . ‘Increasing Returns and Economic Progress,’ Economic Journal, December 1928. He was among the first to History of economic analysis 842 of color’ in the picture of that epoch, Patten,. tremendous success of the Social Democratic party; and second the official adoption of Marxism by this party (Erfurt Program, 1891 ). Both these facts raise most interesting problems of political. point of contact with Leninist and Trotskyite doctrine, which turned completely on Imperialism. Comparison of the ideas of say Bauer and Hilferding with the ideas History of economic analysis