yeah, no.
"Moreover, our contemporaries are convinced that it is economic
conditions that dictate historical events almost exclusively, and
they even imagine that this has always been the case; a theory has even been invented according to which everything is explainable in
terms of economic factors alone, and it bears the significant name
of “historical materialism.” Here also may be seen the effect of one
of those processes of suggestion to which we have already referred,
the power of which is all the greater in that they correspond with
the tendencies of the general mentality; and the result in this case
is that economic factors have really come to decide almost everything
that occurs in the social sphere. It is doubtless true that the
masses have always been led in one way or another, and it could be
said that their part in history consists primarily in allowing themselves
to be led, since they represent a predominantly passive element,
a materia in the Aristotelian sense of the word; but in order to
lead them today it is sufficient to possess oneself of purely material
means, taking the word matter this time in its ordinary sense, and
this clearly shows to what depths the present age has sunk; and at
the same time these same masses are made to believe that they are
not being led, but that they are acting spontaneously and governing
themselves, and the fact that they believe this to be true gives an
idea of the extent of their unintelligence.
As economic factors have been mentioned, we will take the
opportunity to draw attention to an all too common illusion on the
subject, which consists in imagining that relations established in the
field of trade can serve to draw people closer together and bring
about an understanding between them, whereas in reality the effect
is just the contrary. Matter, as we have often pointed out, partakes
essentially of the nature of multiplicity and division, and is therefore
a source of struggle and conflict; similarly, whether it be a case of
peoples or of individuals, the economic sphere remains and cannot
but remain one of a rivalry of interests. In particular the West cannot
count upon industry, any more than upon modern science
which is inseparable from it, to supply a basis for an understanding
with the East; if Orientals get to the point of accepting this industry
as a troublesome, though transitory, necessity—and for them it
could hardly amount to more than that—it will only be as a weapon
enabling them to resist the invasion of the West and to safeguard
their own existence. It is important to understand that things could
not well be otherwise: those Orientals who resign themselves to the
prospect of economic competition with the West, in spite of the
repugnance they feel for this kind of activity, can only do so with
one purpose in mind, namely to rid themselves of a foreign domination based on brute force, on the material power, that is to say,
which industry places at its disposal; violence calls forth violence,
but it should be recognized that it is not the Orientals who have
solicited conflict in this field."