t.

That is all there is of it. That is easy to understand, and every man of
common sense is bound to admit that that much is true.

The word "materialistic" suggests philosophy and metaphysics and brings
to our minds the old disputes about monism and dualism, and the dispute
between religious people who believe in the existence of spirit and
scientists who adopt modern materialistic monism. But no matter what
position a man may hold on these philosophical and theological questions
he can with perfect consistency recognize the fact that the economic
factor is the dominant, determining factor in every day human life, and
the man who admits this simple truth believes in the Marxian
Materialistic Conception of History. The political, legal, ethical and
all human institutions have their roots in the economic soil, and any
reform that does not go clear to the roots and affect the economic
structure of society must necessarily be abortive. Any thing that does
go to the roots and does modify the economic structure, the bread and
butter side of life, will inevitably modify every other branch and
department of human life, political, ethical, legal, religious, etc.
This makes the social question an economic question, and all our thought
and effort should be concentrated on the economic question.[2]

I am aware of the fact that in the Preface of his "Socialism, Utopian
and Scientific," Engels apparently identifies the Materialistic
Conception of History with Materialistic Monism in Philosophy, but this
connection or identification is not a necessary logical consequence of
any statement of the Materialistic Conception of History I have been
able to find by Engels, Marx, Deville, Ferri, Loria, or any Marxian of
authority and to thus identify it, is detrimental to the cause of
Socialism, since many people who would not hesitate to admit the
predominance of the economic factor, instantly revolt at the idea of
Materialism.

Let us take Engels' statement of this doctrine in the preface to the
Manifesto. It is as follows:

"In every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic production
and exchange, and the social organization necessarily following from it,
form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can be
explained the political and intellectual history of that epoch."

Does not that agree exactly with the doctrine as I have stated it? Or,
take this statement of it by Comrade Vail, of Jersey City:

"The l