§ IV. Evolution and Class Distinctions

It but remains now to examine the fourth and last postulate of the materialistic conception of history. It is: The evolution of history is effected by economic contrasts and class struggles.

“The history of society heretofore,” thus we read in the communist manifesto,¹ “is a history of class struggles.” According to Marx the conditions of production are changing slowly but steadily. Whilst this process is going on, the social order established during a former period remains, though at variance with the new conditions of production. Gradually the antagonism between the existing social order and the new economic relations asserts itself. “The awakening conviction,” Engels tells us, “that existing social institutions are unreasonable and unjust, that reason has changed into unreason and benefit into injury, is but an indication of the fact that the methods of production and exchange have been silently transformed so as no longer to tally with the social order which had been adapted to former economic conditions. This means at the same time that also the remedies for these discrepancies must be contained—more or less perfectly developed—in the changed conditions of production. These remedies, however, are not to be drawn from an imaginative brain, but by using our brains they are to be discovered in the existing material facts of production.”²

¹ Manifesto of the Communist Party, Reissued (Berlin, 1891), p. 9.

² Engels, E. Dührings Umwälzung der Wissenschaft, p. 253.

The meaning of this labored declaration can only be the following. Economics and vested rights come into conflict. It becomes evident that the traditional and vested rights are at variance with the new economic conditions and must needs be modified. But now the question arises, by what criterion can we judge and decide whether and wherein there is harmony or discord between economics and vested rights? This criterion must be some superior and immutable standard according to which we judge of vested rights existing at any given time. And this standard can be no other than the unchanging principles of natural law and the ultimate purpose to which all human institutions must be directed. The principles of natural law, however, are not within the ken of historical materialism, and can therefore not be used by it to evince the pretended conflict between right and economics. Again, it cannot be denied that class struggles play an important part in the history of mankind; but to maintain that “the whole of history heretofore was the history of class struggles,”¹ is but a sample of the one-sided exaggerations so common among socialists. Is there any record of class struggles in the whole of Oriental history? There are many accounts of national wars between Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Medes, Persians, etc. We read of great generals and conquerors who introduced radical changes in the political and social order; but of class struggles there is scarcely a trace. The great masses of the people were and remained oppressed, bearing their yoke in mute resignation. And yet these nations reached a marvellous degree of civilization. Later on, the main factors in social evolution were the national struggles between Greeks and Persians, the internecine wars of Greeks against Greeks, the hostilities of Greeks and Macedonians, of Greeks and Romans, of the Romans and their neighbors, especially the Carthaginians. The influence of Greece and Rome upon the civilization of the entire Occident is incalculable, and it is in vain to explain it by a reference to class struggles.

¹ Engels, E. Dührings Umwälzung der Wissenschaft, p. 253.

Still later we meet with the wars of the Romans against the northern barbarians. Then took place that fusion of races from which sprang new and vigorous nations. Was it, perhaps, by class struggles that the Teutonic tribes were gained over to Christianity, and raised to a degree of civilization which elicits the admiration of unprejudiced historians? Again, what is the verdict of the history of India, where the very same classes of society, the so-called castes, have been existing for more than 3000 years, and are so firmly rooted as to defy every attempt at modification? In fine, were science and the arts and thereby the development of civilization ever influenced in any marked degree by class struggles? Are our modern inventions, especially those of printing and gunpowder, are steam-engines and electric motors, are steamboats, railways, factories, telegraphs, etc., to be looked upon as the products of class struggles? And yet they are the real revolutionaries, they are the creators of a new world.

Within the pale of the single nations class struggles have indeed taken place, as we know from the history of Greece and Rome. But these class struggles were, practically speaking, confined to a few cities, and had by no means as much influence on their development as was exercised by external relations and by the activity of great statesmen and generals.

Let us suppose, however, that history is a succession of class struggles. Will it then not follow as a necessary deduction from the materialistic conception of history that with every nation there must be found two antagonistic sets of principles in matters of religion, morality, law, and politics? Yet there is no trace of any such thing, neither among the ancient Oriental nations, the Egyptians, Chinese, Hindus, Assyrians, Persians, nor among the Greeks, Romans, Gauls, etc. The Roman plebeians did not differ from the patricians in their views on religion, morality, and law. Throughout the Middle Ages there was no diversity of opinion in religious, moral, and social matters despite the great struggles between different classes. In spite of their antagonism in the field of politics and economics, pope and emperor, knight and peasant, rich and poor, all firmly upheld the same principles of religion and morality. Look at the transformations which Italy and Spain have undergone since the downfall of the Western Empire, and yet in matters of religion, morality, and vested rights they have suffered no change. If in modern times these countries have been infected by unbelief, the poison is spreading not so much among those classes who suffer most from the new economic conditions, but among the so-called better class of people, who imbibe the venom of infidelity at the universities, just as they do also in other countries,