"The last assertion may sound strange in the mouth of a Marxist. Socialism is however, in fact, based on the overcoming of class-stupidity. For the narrow-minded (bornirt) bourgeois the social question consists of the problems how to keep the workingmen peaceful and their necessities minimal; for the narrow-minded wage worker it is only a question of stomach, the question of high wages, short hours, and secure employment. We must overcome the narrow-mindedness of the one as well as of the other, before we can come to the understanding that the solution of the social problem of our times must embrace much more, much that is only possible in a new form of society . . . The thinker, who overcomes tradition and class-stupidity, assumes a higher standpoint and thereby discovers new truths, that is, comes nearer the real solution of the problem than the average individual. He must not, however, expect to be received with favor by all classes. Only those classes will agree with him whose interests lie in the same direction as the general evolution,—often not even these when the thinker has raised himself too far above his surroundings."
The question of the limits of the influence of economic conditions, and the play of the influences in society, is more fully discussed by Kautsky in his articles written in the Neue Zeit in answer to Bernstein's famous book. In the article on Materialism Kautsky says:
"But let us look a little closer at the different factors to which Bernstein calls our attention: Here we have alongside of the forces and circumstances of production, the juridical and moral conceptions, and the historic and religious traditions. But what are the traditions even according to the 'more progressive' formulation of the materialistic conception of history if not the product of preceding social forms, consequently, also of preceding forms of production; and likewise the juristic and moral conceptions, as far as they are traditional and do not arise out of the social forms existing at that moment. . . .
"So we can upon closer scrutiny reduce the factors which play a part on the surface of history, which Bernstein points out, to ultimate economic factors; and his demand will simply mean that the history of a given time cannot be explained by its own economic history only, but that we must 'take into account' the whole economic development preceding it, together with its heritage from primitive times. . . .
