A Critique of The German Ideology

This whole interpretation of history appears to be contradicted by the fact of conquest.
Up till now violence, war, pillage, murder and robbery, etc. have been accepted as the
driving force of history. Here we must limit ourselves to the chief points and take,
therefore, only the most striking example -- the destruction of an old civilisation by a
barbarous people and the resulting formation of an entirely new organisation of society.
(Rome and the barbarians; feudalism and Gaul; the Byzantine Empire and the Turks.)
With the conquering barbarian people war itself is still, as indicated above, a regular form
of intercourse, which is the more eagerly exploited as the increase in population together
with the traditional and, for it, the only possible, crude mode of production gives rise to
the need for new means of production. In Italy, on the other hand, the concentration of
landed property (caused not only by buying-up and indebtedness but also by inheritance,
since loose living being rife and marriage rare, the old families gradually died out and
their possessions fell into the hands of a few) and its conversion into grazing land (caused
not only by the usual economic forces still operative today but by the importation of
plundered and tribute-corn and the resultant lack of demand for Italian corn) brought
about the almost total disappearance of the free population. The very slaves died out
again and again, and had constantly to be replaced by new ones. Slavery remained the
basis of the whole productive system. The plebeians, midway between freemen and
slaves, never succeeded in becoming more than a proletarian rabble. Rome indeed never
became more than a city; its connection with the provinces was almost exclusively
political and could, therefore, easily be broken again by political events.
Nothing is more common than the notion that in history up till now it has only been a
question of taking. The barbarians take the Roman Empire, and this fact of taking is made
to explain the transition from the old world to the feudal system. In this taking by
barbarians, however, the question is, whether the nation which is conquered has evolved
industrial productive forces, as is the case with modern peoples, or whether their
productive forces are based for the most part merely on their association and on the
community. Taking is further determined by the object taken. A banker's fortune,
consisting of paper, cannot be taken at all, without the taker's submitting to the conditions
of production and intercourse of the country taken. Similarly the total industrial capital of
a modern industrial country. And finally, everywhere there is very soon an end to taking,
and when there is nothing more to take, you have to set about producing. From this
necessity of producing, which very soon asserts itself, it follows that the form of
community adopted by the settling conquerors must correspond to the stage of
development of the productive forces they find in existence; or, if this is not the case
from the start, it must change according to the productive forces. By this, too, is
explained the fact, which people profess to have noticed everywhere in the period
following the migration of the peoples, namely, that the servant was master, and that the
conquerors very soon took over language, culture and manners from the conquered. The
feudal system was by no means brought complete from Germany, but had its origin, as
far as the conquerors were concerned, in the martial organisation of the army during the