No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 February 2009
The so-called materialist conception of history is not only very popular in certain quarters, it is also embodied in much of the practice of historians. Yet, in spite of the current interest in philosophies of history, it is not often that one finds it seriously and critically discussed by philosophers, or indeed by anybody. One reason for this is, no doubt, that though claiming to be scientific it is closely connected with a militant political and economic creed. But there are further and more honourable reasons, in the apparent comprehensiveness of the theory itself and in the lack of any comprehensive statement of it from its chief author. To some of its supporters it appears to be not merely a complete explanation of all history, past, present, and future, but also a psychology, a philosophy, and even a religion ; and yet Marx—who, if he did not originate it, is anyhow mainly responsible for its wide popularity—nowhere expounds it at any length, and for an adequate and authoritative discussion of it we must consult the correspondence of Engels, which is not gathered together in any one place. Thus, while opponents of materialism and determinism tend to reject or ignore a theory which is supposed to imply them both, opponents of Marxism are naturally unwilling to read through that author's very voluminous works for the purpose of reconstructing from his fragmentary remarks a theory that he nowhere fully states.
page 190 note 1 See Seligman, , Economic Interpretation of History, p. 62Google Scholar n. This book contains many useful quotations from obscure and inaccessible works of Marx and Engels. It may be hoped that the relevant matter will soon become available in the publications of the Marx-Engels Archiv.
page 191 note 1 See The Theory of History, by Teggart, F. J. (Yale University Press, 1925)Google Scholar. See also his Processes of History (in which Marx, and Engels, are referred to, pp. 15–18)Google Scholar, and Prolegomena to History.
page 192 note 1 E.g. by Bosanquet, (Philosophical Theory of the State, pp. 26, 27, 3rd edn.).Google Scholar The point is as old as Plato. See Philebus, p. 35.
page 196 note 1 See Beer, , Life and Teaching of Karl Marx, p. 70.Google Scholar The theory is in practice applied by Marxians as often to nations as to classes—and with justice, for a nation could be defined (though no doubt not exhaustively) in the same way as a class is generally defined, namely as a group of men bound together by a common economic interest. But it is not so obviously as a class the result of the economic structure of society.
page 197 note 1 Eighteenth Brumaire, 2nd edn., p. 26 (quoted in Seligman, op. cit., p. 42).
page 199 note 1 Op. cit., ch. ii, pp. 28, 29. See also his Social and International Ideals, ch. xii, “ A Moral from Athenian History.”
page 199 note 2 Quoted in Seligman, , op. cit., p. 64.Google Scholar
page 200 note 1 Quoted in Seligman, , op. cit., p. 142.Google Scholar
page 200 note 2 Introduction to the Study of Karl Marx's Capital, ch. ii and iii, especially pp. 30 and 66.
page 200 note 3 Op. cit., pp. 21–22.
page 202 note 1 This would, of course, involve a closer analysis of the historical process, and especially of the notions of ‘ factor ’ and ‘ element ’ which the theory employs so freely, and which might on examination turn out as ambiguous as ‘ material or ’ economic.’