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.