A People's History of the United States

Historical Materialism, also known as the Marxist Theory of History, is a branch of historical philosophy that emphasizes the role of class conflict as an explanatory factor in history. The idea of historical materialism was first articulated by Karl Marx in the 1848 pamphlet The Communist Manifesto. Marx suggested that class, not nationality, drove conflict because ultimately society is divided into one class of people who profit from the system and another, much larger class who do not. According to Marx, the lower class struggle to equalize the economic imbalance while the upper class works to preserve its power and privilege. As applied to history, this theory stands as a rejection of the then-dominant theory of history that focused on the role that kings, emperors, popes, and other powerful men play. In contrast, historical materialism focuses on working people and their economic reality, how their economic and material conditions affect them, and how they try to improve their lot. However, Marx cautioned against taking his theory as an absolute. Since the 19th century, historical materialism has given a philosophical foundation to numerous disciplines. Many historians have used the framework of class struggle even when they do not agree with Marx’s economic analysis or remedies. Thus, while few historians now would cite Marx as the starting point of their study, most historians engage in some way with the implications of his theory.

A People’s History adopts the Marxist approach as well as the rhetoric about centering on the common person. Zinn’s narrative is an ideal example of this kind of history. First, as Zinn argues, class struggle was built into the founding of America. Columbus wanted gold, and so he exploited the Arawaks to get it. When the Spaniards could not find enough, men like Cortes invaded Mexico and repeated this process with the Aztecs. In each case, the Spaniards became the elite class and exploited the Indigenous peoples. Once established, the conflict between classes becomes a perpetual struggle that defines society even today. In the 1850s and 1860s, lower-class Americans attempted to establish equality, not just racially but along class lines as well. To protect their interests, the elite channeled the energies of a popular movement into a war, which tapped into unfocused political energies and required sacrifices in the name of patriotism and the public good. Almost the same thing happened in the 1950s and 1960s with the Vietnam war. Zinn further highlights the role of popular movements in developing class consciousness and building resistance to the elite agenda. Much of his narrative fits neatly into the framework he chooses to adopt. Zinn’s largest break with historical materialism comes in his pessimistic last chapters. The rise of the liberal consensus in the 1970s, according to Zinn, produced significant disillusionment with American politics. As a result, the labor and peace movements which were strong in previous decades became anemic and ineffectual. These chapters seem to suggest that Zinn believes class consciousness ended or went into hibernation in America, leaving the upper class victorious.