PART II

BOLSHEVIK THEORY

I

THE MATERIALISTIC THEORY OF HISTORY

The materialistic conception of history, as it is called, is due to Marx, and underlies the whole Communist philosophy.  I do not mean, of course, that a man could not be a Communist without accepting it, but that in fact it is accepted by the Communist Party, and that it profoundly influences their views as to politics and tactics.  The name does not convey at all accurately what is meant by the theory.  It means that all the mass-phenomena of history are determined by economic motives.  This view has no essential connection with materialism in the philosophic sense.  Materialism in the philosophic sense may be defined as the theory that all apparently mental occurrences either are really physical, or at any rate have purely physical causes.  Materialism in this sense also was preached by Marx, and is accepted by all orthodox Marxians.  The arguments for and against it are long and complicated, and need not concern us, since, in fact, its truth or falsehood has little or no bearing on politics.

In particular, philosophic materialism does not prove that economic causes are fundamental in politics.  The view of Buckle, for example, according to which climate is one of the decisive factors, is equally compatible with materialism.  So is the Freudian view, which traces everything to sex.  There are innumerable ways of viewing history which are materialistic in the philosophic sense without being economic or falling within the Marxian formula.  Thus the “materialistic conception of history” may be false even if materialism in the philosophic sense should be true.

On the other hand, economic causes might be at the bottom of all political events even if philosophic materialism were false.  Economic causes operate through men’s desire for possessions, and would be supreme if this desire were supreme, even if desire could not, from a philosophic point of view, be explained in materialistic terms.

There is, therefore, no logical connection either way between philosophic materialism and what is called the “materialistic conception of history.”

It is of some moment to realize such facts as this, because otherwise political theories are both supported and opposed for quite irrelevant reasons, and arguments of theoretical philosophy are employed to determine questions which depend upon concrete facts of human nature.  This mixture damages both philosophy and politics, and is therefore important to avoid.