Carl Menger · 1885
Carl Menger’s review presents Friedrich Kleinwächter’s critique of scientific socialism appreciatively while reserving judgment on its theoretical standpoint. Its central distinction separates acknowledgment of socialism’s diagnosis of economic distress from acceptance of collective ownership as the necessary remedy. The positions Menger reconstructs should therefore not automatically be treated as his own conclusions.
The review situates Kleinwächter’s inquiry in socialism’s effort to ground political demands theoretically:
Der moderne Socialismus hat das Bedürfniss nach einer theoretischen Begründung seiner praktischen Postulate empfunden und in Rodbertus und Carl Marx die Schöpfer einer solchen gefunden.
English translation: Modern socialism has felt the need of a theoretical foundation for its practical postulates and has found in Rodbertus and Karl Marx the creators of such a foundation.
Kleinwächter examines these foundations before assessing socialist objectives, the justification of rent and capital income, and capital’s economic function. He distinguishes collective ownership and production combined with private consumption and household management from full communism. This differentiation permits assessment of particular institutional arrangements without treating all socialist proposals as a single model.
Menger reports Kleinwächter’s acknowledgment that socialism has exposed workers’ vulnerability and challenged unrestricted laissez-faire. Neither individual thrift nor Lassalle’s proposed state assistance, however, provides an adequate solution:
Die „Staatshilfe“, wie selbe seinerzeit von Lassalle gefordert wurde, sei indess keineswegs das richtige Mittel, um die Lage der arbeitenden Classen zu heben.
English translation: "State aid," however, as it was demanded in its day by Lassalle, is by no means the right means for raising the condition of the working classes.
The alternative is legislative reform rather than public financing of workers’ productive associations. If distress arises from the economic order, demands for institutional change possess a principled justification:
Dieses Postulat des modernen Socialismus erklärt Kleinwächter als principiell richtig.
English translation: This postulate of modern socialism Kleinwächter declares to be correct in principle.
The scope of this concession matters: endorsing reform does not establish collective property as the appropriate reform, just as recognizing exploitation does not demonstrate that every return to ownership is illegitimate.
Kleinwächter’s objections to Marx’s value theory concern the discrepancy between labour expended and exchange value produced. If labour expenditures do not create corresponding amounts of value, working time alone cannot determine remuneration. His response to exploitation theory also stresses entrepreneurial contributions: participation in bringing the product into existence warrants compensation. The argument extends to owners supplying productive assets and attributes an organizing and disciplinary function to ownership itself. Property may enable exploitation without making all property income exploitative; the remedy is consequently to constrain abuses of economic power rather than abolish ownership.
The review nevertheless separates criticism of Marx’s theory from judgment on socialism’s historical prospects. A defective theoretical justification would not prevent communism from emerging through economic development, while a persuasive argument could not sustain an unworkable economic order. Conversely, injustice under private property does not prove that collective ownership would secure justice. The institutional question is whether private property’s coordinating functions can be replaced.
The discussion thus turns from distribution to motivation. Public spirit, religious enthusiasm, and patriotism demonstrate that cooperation need not always depend on private advantage; communism cannot simply be dismissed as inconceivable. Yet observed conduct gives Kleinwächter grounds for doubting whether self-interest and private ownership can presently be superseded. Competition likewise produces harmful effects requiring legal and moral restraint while supplying an impetus to development. Abolition might eliminate a source of progress along with a source of suffering.
A final substantive distinction separates ownership from the organization of production. Between private ownership with individual production and collective ownership with collective production lie intermediate possibilities: communal ownership with individual cultivation, and private ownership with collective cultivation. Their development remains a historical question. These combinations complicate any absolute opposition between individualism and communism.
Menger closes by declining detailed criticism of Kleinwächter’s standpoint or individual assertions, giving priority to presenting the work’s substantive achievements. The review’s contribution lies in its discriminations: socialist diagnosis is separated from collectivist prescription, exploitation from property income, theoretical validity from historical feasibility, and ownership from management.
This work was divided into 1 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 1 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian