Marxist History

[CrazyModerate]

I dont have the Communist Manifesto on me but I believe the first paragraph of it mentions this theory about how all written history is about the struggle between the powerful and the weak, the oppressed and the oppressor etc.

I've been wondering, how does this apply to say, a war between two imperialist nations such as the French and the British? Or a war between religous faction such as the crusades? How does Marxist History apply to this?

If you are wondering, this is a serious post, I really want to know. I am not just trying to say "Marxist history is wrong." Im just wondering about it.

[KC]

It is saying that social history has been based between class struggles. Two imperialist countries going to war isn't a class struggle.

[redstar2000]

What Marx and Engels meant by this opening statement is not that every event in history is an act of class struggle, but rather that the root of all class societies is an ongoing struggle between the societies' ruling classes and the classes that it exploits and oppresses.

It's the background for all the historical stuff that takes place in the foreground...and eventually class struggle moves to the foreground itself when that particular class society enters a period of crisis.

An inter-imperialist war does not take place simply because "evil leaders love wars"...it happens because the capitalists in each country must obey the command "grow or die" -- and they have (or think they have) "hit a wall" in further expansion/exploitation.

The Crusades did not happen because of "God's Will" or even a particular pope's will. Feudalism in Christendom was facing real problems -- rebellious serfs, feuds between property-less knights, heresy, etc. Sending all the "trouble-makers" to Palestine seemed like "a good idea at the time"...and that was the choice of both secular and "spiritual" nobility.

It worked for a while.

[CrazyModerate]

Alright thanks.