1.
On page 10 it states “The whole interpretation of
history appears to be contradicted by the fact of conquest. Up till now,
violence, war, pillage, rape and slaughter, ect. Have been accepted as the
driving force of history.” I am confused if this passage is stating that
mankind depends on evil to advance in society or if it is stating that only
evil doings get noticed and all good things are unrecognizable?
2.
On page 16 the article states “The first
necessity therefore in any theory of history is to observe this fundamental fact
in all its significance and all its implications and to accord it its due importance.”
I am just confused on how this would work with history that is not observable
or perhaps extremely difficult to interpret. Would this just mean that the
historians are taking a shot in the dark and hoping that the information in
textbooks is at least somewhat accurate?
Hey Heather. Your first question is very interesting. I would have to agree with your second suggestion that Marx believes that we only notice the evil parts of our history. Even though I don't agree with him that it is the bad events that shape our history, I do agree that it seems that he is focusing on these events because they are what we notice and are memorable.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your first question, I think it is important to analyse this particular passage as a whole. Further down on page 10, Marx goes on to say that "with the conquering barbarian people war itself is still... a regular form of intercourse". My interpretation of this paragraph determines that Marx recognizes warfare as a reoccuring tradition in German history, therefore finding it significant through repetition. I don't think that Marx necessarily finds evil to be the defining (or most important) characteristic in terms of historical context, but rather he is suggesting that warfare is one of the more impacting events that has been practiced time and time again throughout German history.
ReplyDelete