(discusses history as a battle-ground between ruling and subject classes, and the method and outcome of this struggle.)

there is a theory of social development, sometimes called the materialistic interpretation of history, and sometimes the economic interpretation of history. it is one of the contributions to our thought which we owe to karl marx, and like all the rest of marxian theory, it is a subject of embittered controversy, not merely between socialists and orthodox economists, but between various schools of revolutionary doctrine. for my part, i have never been a great hand for doctrine, whether ancient or modern; i am not much more concerned with what marx taught than i am with what st. paul taught, or what martin luther taught. my advice is to look at life with your own eyes, and to state in simple language the conclusions of your own thinking.

man is an eating animal; he has also been described as a tool-making animal, and might be described as an ideal-making animal. there is a tendency on the part of those who specialize in the making of ideals to repudiate the eating and the tool-making sides of man; which accounts for the quarrel between the marxians and the moralists. all through history you find new efforts of man to develop his emotional and spiritual nature, and to escape from the humiliating limitations of the flesh. these efforts have many of them been animated by desperate sincerity, but none of them have changed the fundamental fact that man is an eating animal, an animal insufficiently provided by nature against cold, and with an intense repugnance to having streams of cold water run down back of his neck. the religious teachers go out with empty purse, and "take no thought for the morrow"; but the forces of nature press insistently upon them, and little by little they make compromises, they take to shelter while they are preaching, they consent to live in houses, and even to own houses, and to keep a bank account. so they make terms with the powers of this world, and the powers of this world, which are subtle, and awake to their own interests, find ways to twist the new doctrine to their ends.

so the new religion becomes simply another form of the old hypocrisy; and it comes to us as a breath of fresh air in a room full of corruption when some one says, "let us have done with aged shams and false idealisms. let us face the facts of life, and admit that man is a physical animal, and cannot do any sane and constructive thinking until he has food and shelter provided. let us look at history with unblinking eyes, and realize that food and shelter, the material means of life, are what men have been seeking all through history, and will continue to seek, until we put production and distribution upon a basis of justice, instead of a basis of force."

such is, as simply as i can phrase it, the materialistic interpretation of history. put into its dress of scientific language it reads: the dominant method of production and exchange in any society determines the institutions and forms of that society. i do not think i exaggerate in saying that this formula, applied with judgment and discrimination, is a key to the understanding of human societies.

wherever man has moved into the stage of slavery and private property there has been some group which has held power and sought to maintain and increase it. this group has set the standards of behavior and belief for the community, and if you wish to understand the government and religion, the manners and morals, the philosophy and literature and art of that community, the first thing you have to do is to understand the dominant group and its methods of keeping itself on top. this statement applies, not merely to those cultural forms which are established and ordained by the ruling class; it applies equally well to the revolutionary forms, the behavior and beliefs of those who oppose the ruling class. for men do not revolt in a vacuum, they revolt against certain conditions, and the form of their revolt is determined by the conditions. take, for example, primitive christianity, which was certainly an effort to be unworldly, if ever such an effort was made by man. but you cannot understand anything about primitive christianity unless you see it as a new form of slave revolt against roman imperialism and capitalism.

the theory of the class struggle is the master key to the bewilderments and confusions of history. always there is a dominant class, holding the power of the state, and always there are subject classes; and sooner or later the subject classes begin protesting and struggling for wider rights. when they think they are strong enough, they attempt a revolt, and sometimes they succeed. if they do, they write the histories of the revolt, and their leaders become heroes and statesmen. if they fail, the histories are written by their oppressors, and the rebels are portrayed as criminals.

one of the commonest of popular assumptions is that if the rebels have justice on their side, they are bound to succeed in the long run; but this is merely the sentimental nonsense that is made out of history. it is perfectly possible for a just revolt to be crushed, and to be crushed again and again; just as it is possible for a child which is ready to be born to fail to be born, and to perish miserably. the fact that the huguenots had most of the virtue and industry and intelligence of france did not keep them from being slaughtered by catholic bigots, and reaction riveted upon the french people for a couple of hundred years. the fact that the moors had most of the industry of spain did not keep them from being driven into exile by the inquisition, and the intellectual life of the spanish people strangled for three hundred or four hundred years.

some eight hundred years ago our ancestors in england brought a cruel and despotic king to battle, and conquered him, and on the field of runnymede forced him to sign a grant of rights to englishmen. that document is known as magna carta, or the great charter, and everyone who writes political history today recognizes it as one of the greatest of man's achievements, the beginning of a process which we hope will bring freedom and equality before the law to every human being on earth.

and now we have come to the stage in our industrial affairs, when the organized workers seek to bring the monarchs of industry into the council chamber, and force them to sign a similar great charter, which will grant freedom and self-government to the workers. just as king john was forced to admit that the power to tax and spend the public revenue belonged to the people of england, and not to the ruler; just so the workers will establish the principle that the finances of industry are a public concern, that the books are to be opened, and prices fixed and wages paid by the democratic vote of the citizens of industry. if that change is accomplished, the historian of the future will recognize it as another momentous step in progress; and he will heed the protests of the lords of industry, that they are being deprived of their freedom to do business, and of their sacred legal rights to their profits, as little as he heeded the protests of king john against the "treason" and "usurpation" and infringement of "divine right" by the rebellious barons.