THE PRESENT STATUS OF SOCIOLOGY IN GERMANY 573
theological, rationalistic, and also naturalistic phases, is the histor- ical conception of the burgher class, while historical materialism is the preconception of the working class" (p. 500). As matter of fact, the burgher historians tend to be very shy of historical materialism, while those who call themselves socialists feel them- selves in duty bound to justify historical materialism, to investigate only from its point of view, even at the cost of turning the facts upside down. For a person of somewhat delicate sensibility it is inordinately disgusting to see a purely theoretical question treated from the standpoint of a political party. The circum stance that Karl Marx was the author of this theory cannot be a sufficient ground in the minds of the upright scientific investi- gator for rejecting it without further thought, nor, on the other hand, for establishing it is as a dictum to which, according to the party programme, unlimited obedience must be paid. Philo- sophical theorems are more changeable and flexible than party programmes ; they also give rise to less hatred and bitterness. Historical materialism derived an impulse, as is well known, from Marx, although he nowhere formulated it as a systematic theory. We find it scattered in his various writings, and we dis- tinguish it as a sort of undertone in all his assertions. Only once is the fundamental proposition of this theory plainly spoken out. In the Kritik de r polit. Oekonomie, Preface, he says : "The method of production of the material life determines the social, political, and spiritual life-process in general. It is not the consciousness of man that determines his being, but his social existence determines his consciousness."
According to this formula we have a key which explains the most complicated historical events. Suppose we have before us, for example, the "Renaissance." Nothing is easier than to understand it. We need only to know the economic relations of the time, which is not so very difficult. We need only to figure out how many loaves of bread and pounds of meat per year and per capita the men of the Renaissance had to divide among themselves something that with a little trouble may easily be discovered, as M. Taine did it for the time preceding
