HOW IS THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE EXPLAINED FROM THE

PERSPECTIVE OF HISTORICAL MATERIALISM?

RAMIRO ENRIQUE BORJA MARTÍNEZ

11º

LICEO BOSTON

BOGOTÁ D.C.

2007

HOW IS THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE EXPLAINED FROM THE

PERSPECTIVE OF HISTORICAL MATERIALISM?

RAMIRO ENRIQUE BORJA MARTÍNEZ

11°

LICEO BOSTON

MONOGRAFIA PARA OPTAR POR EL TÍTULO DE BACHILLER

RECTOR

GUILLERMO RAMIREZ BRIZNEDA

ASESOR DE MONOGRAFÍA

BOGOTA D.C.

2007

2

3

CONTENTS

SUMMARY (page 5)

INTRODUCTION (page 10)

1 ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE (page 11)

1.1 ECONOMIC BASIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HISTORICAL

MATERIALISM (page 11)

1.1.1 What does “mode of production” mean?

1.1.2 The slave mode of production.

1.2 ECONOMIC BASIS OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE (page 16)

1.2.1. The slave mode of production in the Roman Empire

1.2.2 Economic contradictions in the Roman Empire.

2. THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE (page 23)

2.1 THE COURSE OF HISTORY AND ITS DEFINING ELEMENTS (page 23)

2.2 CLASS STRUGGLE IN THE END OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE (page 27)

2.2.1 Classes in the fall of the Roman Empire and their roles.

2.2.2 Ideas concerning the role of barbarians in the fall of the Roman Empire.

3. CONCLUSIONS (page 30)

BIBLIOGRAPHY (page 34)

4

SUMMARY

The reasons behind this monograph are basically two, the first and foremost is intellectual

curiosity, the proposed question combines two subjects which I consider fascinating,

Marxism and history, these are in fact the areas of knowledge I find most interesting. When

thinking about mixing them, being Marxism essentially a tool for the analysis of society, it

was unavoidable to consider actually using it. The question that was originally planned was

harder and richer in terms of up-to-date conclusions, an analysis on the fall of the USSR;

however it turned to be too complex, presenting a challenge that for practical reasons such

as time and personal obligations was necessary to leave on stand-by. The reasons for the

complexity of the question seemed to be that the USSR chapter in history is still not

finished, the subject is still too recent to ask for the writings and investigations on it to be

unbiased, and looking for a similar but much earlier phenomenon became the obvious

choice. On remembering the common reasons used to explain the fall of the Roman Empire

studying that period of time turned interesting because its distance with the present day

guarantees plenty of unbiased and generous sources of information.

Among the reasons commonly argued it is almost funny to find so-called “institutional

crisis”, “loss of civic virtue” or similar ideas that deep down are empty statements, the

same words are often applied to the Colombian situation, leading only to an idealist and

superficial analysis that mixes causes and effects. A chance to improve some of existing

knowledge on the Roman Empire while learning and experimenting with theoretical

elements useful on analyzing both ancient and modern societies became evident. The

subject was effective enough on preventing the main risk, a writing made without any

creativity or innovation, a mechanical copy-paste. This work is meant to be a small

laboratory made to test the knowledge so far obtained and to play with it.

5

The latter is precisely the second motivation, beyond the usual academic requirement, this

monograph is an opportunity to challenge the social or political theories defended, truly

more with faith than rationality sometimes. The elaboration of this work comes in a

decisive moment when life choices are supposed to me made, taking that into account,

intellectual coherence is a necessary tool to leave a mark.

The objectives of this work can be classified as follows:

General Objective: Explaining the fall of the Roman Empire from the perspective of

historical materialism

Specific Objectives:

1. Investigating the characteristics, conditions and development of the economic

organizations of the roman society surrounding its decline.

2. Establishing the role the economic classes represented on that historical conjunction.

3. Explain the fall of the Roman Empire as a natural consequence of the class struggle in

the middle of the roman society, caused by the usage and development of the slave mode of

production and productive forces.

The monograph is developed around a phenomenon and a concept, which is the tool to

understand the phenomenon, the fall of the Roman Empire, the concept is, of course,

historical materialism, the first task is to accurately define both of them.

There is neither a defined date, nor even a single event than marks undoubtedly the fall of

the Roman Empire, it is even said it simply did not happen, that the empire transformed

instead of falling. We will begin by saying that in a strict sense it did fell because there is

no Roman Empire on modern day maps, obviously a civilization as big as that does not

disappear without a trace, in fact it leaves a permanent mark on history. However roman

legacy is not the subject of discussion, it is the empire itself, the political institution and the

corresponding social organization. If the question is when this institution is over, the

6

answer is rather simple, we cannot name a precise date and it is not important to do so,

because what went on is an entire disintegration process with complete stages. What we can

do is to state that basically with the separation of the western empire from the eastern, and

the subsequent barbarian invasion, the enormous political institution we are talking about

met an ending.

What has been said so far is not to be confused, the barbarian invasions deep down are not

the cause of the decline, they mark something, of course, but they were not the first

invasions the Romans faced. Why were the barbarians successful this time? They managed

to depose an emperor, sack roman cities, and take control of every form of power in

society. Were not the Romans capable of repelling them? Why did series of events

coincided in that specific historical moment leading to the result we all know and why

precisely that result?

We have already established the place of the events, the Western Roman Empire (the

roman possessions west from the Slavic countries) We now need to move between the IV

and the V century, that is the historical conjunction we are going to study, mainly its

economic condition and we will understand why when we define historical materialism as

follows.

To avoid unnecessarily extending, the concept will not be demonstrated, that has already

been masterfully done by better and wiser authors, Marx, Engels and many more Marxists

intellectuals and philosophers. We can instead read a simple definition extracted from

Wikipedia:

1 “Historical materialism starts from the view that in order to exist human

beings collectively work on nature to produce the means to life. Not all human

beings, however, do the same work; there is a division of labor in which people

1 Wikipedia. Historical Materialism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism March 2007

7

not only do different jobs, but some people live from the work of others by

owning the means of production. How this is done depends on the type of

society.

In European societies, for instance, four kinds of society have emerged (modes

of production): primitive communism or tribal society (a prehistoric stage),

slave mode of production or ancient society, feudal mode of production or

medieval society and capitalism. Ancient society was based on a dominant class

of slaveholders (not only owning the means of production but also de labor

force) and the slaves themselves; feudalism on the lords and the vassals;

capitalism was organized on the basis of capitalists who own the jeans of

production, distribution and exchange (such as factories, mines, shops and

banks) and a working class that lives through the sale of their labor force to the

bourgeoisie in exchange of money.

Historical materialism can be considered based on the following principles:

1. The basis of human society how humans work on nature to produce their

means of subsistence.

2. There is a division of labor into social classes (relations of production) based

on property ownership where some people live from the labor of others.

3. The system of class division is dependent on the mode of production.

4. Society moves from stage to stage when the dominant class is displaced by a

new emerging class”

To achieve a deeper idea we are checking one of the writings we mentioned when

introducing the concept, this is the one of the few direct comments that Marx made on the

materialist conception of history or historical materialism.

8

2“In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite

relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production

appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of

production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the

economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and

political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social

consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general

process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of

men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines

their consciousness.”

With the fall of the Roman Empire the slave mode of production was over, never again a

social order based on the private ownership of human beings would prosper; in exchange

the feudal mode of production had to be adopted. As we will understand, this economic

change is a consequence of the usage and development of the mode of production we

mentioned and the improvements on productive forces (among them, scientific and

technical development). We shall also understand how does the fall of the Roman Empire is

ultimately determined by the economic change.

To conclude the summary, it is worth adding the main conclusion is the explanation

developed through the contents. As secondary conclusions we can state in the first place

that in the present day it is still valid to apply historical materialism as an analysis tool, in

second place the need to improve what has been said con Marxist theory about

revolutionary subject and class struggle, finally the concrete way in which the economic

basis determines the superstructure of society.

2 MARX, Karl. Prólogo a la Contribución a la crítica de la economía política. Marxists Internet Archive. Online Edition at http://www.marxists.org/espanol/m-e/1850s/criteconpol.htm. March 2001

9

INTRODUCTION

In the year 476 the roman emperor, Romulus Augustus was deposed from his throne by

Odoacer, chief of the Germanic Herules tribe, it marks one of the turning points in the

decline of the glorious Roman Empire after about five centuries, 359 years after reaching

its top extension, the civilized world.

How could the Germanic hordes; peoples with a primitive social structure, almost nomadic,

without alphabet, without any technical developments worth mentioning and many other

lacks; destroy the political entity that ruled the civilized world? The answer is what this

monograph aims to find. The tool resides on the theory of historical materialism, a basic

principle that guarantees rationality and scientific principles in the analysis to a certain

extent.

Obviously the goal in the monograph is not to be an extensive and dense treaty,

inaccessible, not discussable, this work keeps simplicity and functionality on solving the

initial problem, the priorities are far from being complexity or esthetic, on the contrary

simplicity keeping veracity. In replacement some style conventions have been sacrificed in

order to keep a friendly, familiar tone. Explanations and demonstrations not strictly

necessary that have already been developed with insurmountable precision and reason are

not included and the reader is suggested to check the books quoted on the work for them.

Finally care has been taken in avoiding speculative and arguable statements; anyway, as in

every human making, speculation and mistake frenetically hide in places where not even

the most careful of authors is able to find them. The best response to this monograph is

consequently the opposition to everything discussable and the pointing of any statement

than cannot be proved neither true nor false

10

1. ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

1.1 ECONOMIC BASIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HISTORICAL

MATERIALISM

1.1.1 ¿What does “mode of production” mean?

As already said, this monograph’s starting point is the theory of historical materialism;

logically we will begin by studying the economic frame in which the roman society stands.

The reason behind the importance of the economic frame is that, as Marx analyzed history,

it became evident that “The mode of production of material life conditions the general

process of social, political and intellectual life.”3 Consequentially, the “mode of

production” determines the social and political processes, the analysis of the mode applied

in the Roman Empire must explain a social and political process such as it decline and fall.

The mode of production applied there is named the slave mode of production; its

characteristics will be described later, so far we will begin defining what a “mode of

production” is.

The mode of production in a society is often conceived at first as the “relations of

production” that make part of it, in other words, the relationships people usually get

involved in aiming to produce the goods they need for their subsistence, and thereby the

subsistence of their society. To conclude the mode of production is defined by its

corresponding relations of production.

3 Ibid

11

The ways people could relate to produce are infinite, however the fields historical analysis

tends to be interested in are the relations named, for explanation purposes, as labor and

property relations; who works for who, why, and what do they own. Those are all questions

that define relations of production in a society. The importance of those two kinds of

relations resides on them being precisely the kind that has more influence on production.

Concerning property relations, what is owned by whom, it is not the possession on

consumer goods we are interested in; clothing, food and everyday needs. We are not

interested on them because they are in turn produced by another kind of goods. The “means

of production” as their name points out, are the origin of consumer goods. The means of

production during the roman times were mainly farms, mines and crops, in other words,

land. The roman people dressed, fed and fought with what land gave them. The conclusion

is that the important part of property relations is the distribution of property on the means of

production, and in the Roman Empire, the distribution of property on land.

On labor relations it is worth saying that to enable the means of production to actually

produce something, labor is required, whether through man directly or through machines

and animals; the labor required is named “labor force”, given roman development labor

force was almost completely human. The important part of labor relations is knowing who

ends up owning the production, the natural thing is working for oneself, nobody will ever

work for others unnecessarily if, by doing so, time to work for the own life is lost.

However, more often than not, when an individual works, he or she only manages to keep

part of what was produced, the reasons behind that often portray the social organization.

Aside from knowing who works and how, the important subject of study on these relations

is how much of his or her work is kept and why.

Analyzing what has been said, it becomes evident the composition of both the labor force

and the means of production varies and may be considered an indicator on the degree of

technical and scientific development in a society. It also ends up conditioning the form

relations of production adopt, these elements together, labor force and means of production,

are named “productive forces”.

12

1.1.2 The slave mode of production.

The definition on the concept of “mode of production” has been achieved by explaining the

concepts and elements that shape it, it is now time to study the shape those elements adopt

specifically in the case of the slave mode of production, that way the shape of the slave

mode itself will be established.

The concept of “slave mode of production” is abstract and it is not only applied in the

roman society, but in all the slave societies, it has already been defined with accuracy and

a materialist vision in terms of the elements and concepts we mentioned, a transcription of

one of those definitions follows, written by Kuusinen, a Finnish communist, politician,

philosopher and poet.

4”The basis of relations of production on this regime is private property of the

slaveholder not only on the means of production, but also on the labor force

itself, on the slaves. This property of the lord over the slaves and everything

they produce is imposed by the level of development of productive forces in the

time, a level of development high enough to enable the exploitation of the

workers. Simultaneously however, it was low enough as to make the

exploitation of the workers, taking part of their production, possible only by

reduced their consumption to the minimum, leaving them only the strictly

necessary to prevent starvation to death. That could only be done by stripping

the exploited from every kina of rights and reducing them to the conditions of

speaking tools, and using on them the most ferocious of coactive measures.

The change on relations of production revolutionized the remaining spheres in

the life of society.

4 KUUSINEN, Otto. Principios de Materialismo Histórico. Ediciones Suramérica. Bogotá. 1962

13

The relations of cooperation and solidarity, characteristic of the primitive

communities, were left aside in favor of the relations of domination on one part

of society over the others, relations of exploitation, oppression and irreducible

hostility. Society divided onto hostile classes: slaveholders and slaves.”

Kuusinen then speaks about the moral decay that corresponded to the time of transition

between tribal societies and slavery. Quoting Engels; then he describes the conformation of

the State as a consequence of the need of repression over the recently formed and

ferociously exploited class of the slaves, consequentially again raising a juridical

organization and a specific ideology of the slave society, of uses such as the reject of

physical works as something low, and ideas of difference and inequality among men. All of

the former are ideas derived from historical materialism, all interesting and capable of a

profound impact on the understanding of modern society, in spite of that, we are not

interested right now on those ideas. Kuusinen will also write about the process of

development characteristic of the slave mode of production that does explain the process

the Roman Empire lived to see.

5“(…) and, in spite of that all, the slavery regime meant a great step forward in

the evolution of humanity. The division of labor goes on, with the separation

between agriculture and urban production, and inside them. Labor division

also meant in turn specialization of instruments and tools and a new cumulus of

experience. In agriculture next to the cereal crops, new crops develop. Tools

(…) are invented. The muscular force of men is complemented on a large scale

by animals. The work of true masses of slaves allows the construction of dams

and irrigation systems, of roads and ships, of aqueducts and great urban

edifications. And when a part of the members of society remains free of direct

participation on production (thanks to the exploitation of slaves) conditions

develop for the scientific and artistic progress.

5 Ibíd.

14

Nevertheless a time comes in which the possibilities of progress the slave mode

of production provided run out; its relations of production become an obstacle

that stops the development of productive forces. The lords managing the way

they managed the slaves, who demanded little attention, did not show interest

on the improvement of labor instruments. The bigger abundance was, the less

complex and expensive instruments could be trusted to the slave, because the

slave could not have the slightest interest on the results of his or her work. The

needs of development of productive forces increasingly demanded the

suppression of the old relations of production.

That could only be accomplished by a social revolution, whose motor could

only be the classes and segments of society that suffered the oppression of the

slave regime and therefore were interested in its suppression. Those peoples

were slaves and the poorer among the free population. As the contradictions

deepen on the old mode of production, the class struggle acquires more

virulence. Its specific shapes are varied, from the plain sabotage of the labor

instruments, to the popular riots in which tens of thousands of men take part.

On the last stage, the slave regime falls under the joint strikes of the

insurrection of the working classes and the raids of the neighboring barbarian

tribes, the state weakened by internal contradictions and war proved not

capable of facing the increasing attacks. A new institution replaces slavery,

feudalism”

There are things to be said concerning the last paragraph, further on we will return on the

subject, however Kuusinen words are good enough in explaining the abstract concept of

“slave mode of production”. We are now studying the usage of this mode of production

specifically on roman society.

15

1.2 ECONOMIC BASIS OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

1.2.1 The slave mode of production in the Roman Empire.

The roman economy was basically made by two economic classes, the patricians, the

dominant class, owners of the means of production and slaves. The patricians had the

juridical property as well as the effective profit over the means of production, the labor

force and the goods and services produced by them. The patrician class accumulated huge

rural properties named latifundia, the smallest ones being around 120 hectares, reaching up

to 80.000 hectares, on average the latifundia were around 1.200 hectares. On the other

hand, slaves, as a patrician property, were not subjects of rights and were forced to work

receiving in exchange insignificant proportions of their production, not enough to survive

in most of the cases. Thousands of joint slaves could work simultaneously in the same

latifundium.

Patricians were the traditional roman citizens, nobles, senators, politicians, military or

government officials etc. The state and the church, as institutions, would eventually own an

important portion of the roman land.

The free peasants, owners of their own land, were basically war veterans, average roman

farmers and people that had been granted land, this class, along with the slaves, would be

the seed of the feudal serfs. Additionally, near the end of the empire, when its decline had

begun, land started being granted to barbarian groups, the roman government aimed to

increase population and maintain the exploited land. The joint property of these groups

together was still a small fraction of the patrician land. Towards the fall of the empire the

gap was increasingly bigger.

16

Slaves were usually war prisoners or foreigners specifically captured to gather slaves,

another important fraction was made by impoverished Romans who were sometimes forced

to sell their children and eventually got themselves enslaved by force as a payment for their

debts. The latter was a frequent practice on slave shortage times, mostly when the empire

could not afford to overexpand, especially around its rise and also its decline. Even though

it was illegal during several stages of roman history, enslavement of impoverished Romans

was always practiced. As the end of the Roman Empire got close, they achieved a juridical

status different from the slaves, we will return on this fact ahead as it is symptomatic of the

decline. Life expectancy for Romans was low, of course it was much lower for the slaves,

Rome was always short of manpower and labor force, in other words, slaves.

Roman economy was mainly agrarian, consequentially, latifundia were the basic cell of

roman economy, even though in the beginning an important portion was that of the

peasantry land, it never managed to be the majority, and gradually integrated to latifundia

as a consequence of the slave mode of production itself, we will talk about this further on.

Manufacture was formed by artisan production on the first place, this was enough to satisfy

local needs; during roman times it would have been very uncommon to find goods that

were not locally produced, frequently the tools of an average farmer were produced by a

well-known local artisan. Besides artisan production only uniforms and weapons were

produced at a large scale for the imperial army. Manufacture was a small area of roman

economy, commerce was in consequence small too, both had no significant impact on

roman economy as to be worthy of being taken into account.

On the degree of development of productive forces we can say that even though a wide

variety of techniques and instruments were known, and there was enough understanding to

use animals on the crops, only the most basic means were used, a slave and the primitive

tools he or she strictly needed. The deficient use of available means deepened instead of

diminishing as time went by, we will understand why further on.

17

What has been said obviously changed and evolved as time went by, originally roman

society ran on a tribal economy. Towards the end of the empire various feudal economic

institutions, even though they ran against roman traditional ways, had to be adopted. The

elements that created the need of change, the contradictions of the slave mode of

production, will now be described

1.2.2 Economic contradictions in the Roman Empire.

The roman economy presented several problems, caused by its own structure, problems that

would deepen gradually as the economic model developed. We will begin by pointing out

the most evident one, on which most of the others originate; the slave mode of production

is based on the over exploitation of slaves, giving almost nothing in exchange, as a result

we have an average worker with an extremely low life expectancy. This implies the

constant need of gathering more slaves; as the main source is war, a need for constant

expansion is created

The Roman Empire did expand in a surprising way, it managed to control almost the entire

Europe, North Africa and an important part of the Middle East, conquering many nations

on the process, imposing the roman social structure and enslaving important portions of the

conquered populations. The expansion phase of the slave mode of production gave birth to

roman glory and raised it; this glorious image that we preserve in the present day would be

over in reality as time went by.

Constant expansion does not only require a great army, it also requires great physical an

administrative infrastructure, causing great government expenses. Taxes were the main

source of income for the government; as the expenses increase, citizens are increasingly

taxed. That creates bigger loads of work for slaves, who then have shorter lives. Taxing

also creates a difficult situation for peasantry, for whom the options are starvation or

enslavement, even though they are a source of slaves, they cannot supply the needs of the

empire. The long-term effect is a decrease in population.

18

The prosperity phase ended around the II century a.d., on that matter historian Norman J.G.

Pounds says:

6“During the mid II century of our era, the roman empire reached its highest

peak of power and prosperity. Admired by its contemporaries and heightened

for the posterity (…) In that period the seeds of the decline of Rome were

already planted, skirmishes on the borders of the empire extended (…) The

army had to be strengthened and the taxes to maintain it (…) A harsh and

usually unfair taxing sunk the peasantry and widened the gap between the poor

and the rich. The rich increased their properties, while the descendants of the

old free peasantry turned, as time went by, into coloni tied to the land of their

lords”

“Productivity of the land was low (…) in most of Italy a profit of 4 to 1 was

common (…) in the hard years profits could be much lower (…) As a last resort

the farmer would sell his property to pay taxes and lived on someone else’s

land as a tenant (…) when the situation of the slaves started improving, the

coloni’s worsened and the difference between them minimized”

“The mortality rate was high and the average life expectancy very short (…)

the part of the roman population of whom we are informed (…) is certainly

composed by the ones who were wealthy enough as to leave a trace of their life.

The average age of an adult at the moment of death was between 30 and 35

years. It is thought there was high child mortality and the life expectancy at

birth could not be much more than 20 years”

6 POUNDS, Norman. Historia Económica de Europa Medieval. Editorial Crítica. Barcelona 1981

19

With the decrease on population several consequences appear, economy turns less

productive and keeping a solid state with enough military power gets harder, that causes an

increase on the attacks made by the peoples threatened by the expansion necessary to

sustain the empire. Attacks cause even a further decrease on population and crop

destruction, besides forcing an even bigger military expending; the decrease in crops and

population hardens the gathering of income. The economic problems also generate an inner

social pressure that the government must face with an even bigger spending.

7 “Given the situation, the emperors (…) resorted more frequently to monetary

manipulation (…) the coinage of an increasing number of money, without a

matching increase in productivity (…) led to an unavoidable increase in prices

(…) the inflationist tendency was

too strong…”

“The tax burden contributed to a reduction on the number of free peasants,

thereby increasing the wealth in the hands of the senatorial class. This class, as

we have seen, was used to avoid (…) their taxes”

“The tax on land that fell mainly on the small landowner was the main source

of government income. The invasion to Rome by its enemies, the destruction

caused by civil war, the unpredictable weather and the uncertainty of the crop

threatened the well being of the farmer. He could always be conscripted to help

on the defense of the empire and the big landowner was always willing to take

possession over the farmer’s land given the case his debts forced him to sell it.

Who would be surprised if the people exposed to that kind of unfairness in the

name of a civilized government, gladly accepted the rough justice of a gothic

chieftain?”

“And what resistance, we could ask ourselves, did the lower classes opposed to

the oppression they suffered? It was hard to oppose to a system in which the

7 Ibid

20

armed forces and the tribunals were on the patrician side. In spite of that,

insurrections were produced. There were violent riots among the peasants of

North Africa during the IV century (…) In the Gaul, since the ending of the III

century, the were revolts (…) fueled by the dissatisfaction of the peasantry (…)

The revolts extended to Spain, and, in an intermittent way, they went on

through the entire IV century”

Besides all of the above, the slave mode of production carries as a consequence a

significant scientific advance because of the population it frees from the load of

maintaining itself, that way the dominant class may focus on intellectual development.

However the system itself drowns the technical development for several reasons; the

despise for physical labor and technical details characteristic of the dominant class is an

obstacle to development on this area; the situation of the slaves makes the use of

innovations difficult, economical difficulties turn animal labor and related tools very

unprofitable.

8“From a technical standpoint roman agriculture was conservative. The

institution of slavery may have been an inhibiting factor of innovation (…) Most

likely the educated people would not be interested in the daily activities on their

lands. The kind of education they received predetermined them to ignore

technical matters (…) In most of the Mediterranean region land seems to have

been worked on even or odd years. This was caused, of course, by a lack of

fertilizers (…) The plough (…) had not changed on the essentials since

Hesiodus description around 800 a.d. It just scratched the soil’s surface, could

not turn it or penetrate it (…) animal breeding was unimportant (…) dry

periods burned the herbs, the shortage on grasslands and the lacks of certain

kinds of crops limited shepherding. A single cow was as far as an average

farmer could get.”

8 Ibid

21

The conclusion is that the economic model stopped the progress of productive forces, it led

the society of that time into the feudal regime, the relations of production end up forcing an

economic failure and the technical potential to maintain a society with different relations is

ready. Conditions like low population, isolation, big quantities of abandoned land and

political fractioning constitute requirements the new organization must take into account.

Feudalism turns to be the solution to all those problems, the potential of productive forces

by that time allows the survival of isolated communities with a reduced quantity of human

labor, in a way that allows every individual to work bigger extensions. The use of land is

maximized and peasants end up tied to it by the feudal contract; small, independent and

self-sufficient realms are erected. The feudal mode of production opens up its path.

9“The colonists were (…) adscripti glebae (tied to their land, they had to work it

and could not abandon it) and their descendants that inherited the tenement

also inherited their limitations in movement (…) for most the new state of things

was permanently and progressively oppressive. (…) What difference can you

see – would say emperor Justinian on the IV century –between slaves and

adscripticii, when both depend on the will of their master, who can submit an

slave with his peculium and alienate an adscripticius with land? Society moved

straight towards the medieval serfdom system”

The Western Roman Empire ended and middle age began with the Germanic invasions of

the V century. Emperor Romulus Augustus was deposed on the year 476 and along with it

and entire era ended.

9 Ibid

22

2. THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

2.1 THE COURSE OF HISTORY AND ITS DEFINING ELEMENTS

We have already seen how the roman mode of production built the need of change in the

system, because a crisis emerged out of its own contradictions, the economic crisis that was

literally starving the roman people was gradually solved by introducing new relations of

production. The development of the productive forces made the introduction of these new

relations possible because human labor was no longer required at the same level, the

creation of self-sufficient communities was made possible without the need of imposing

extreme poverty and exploitation to anybody.

The latter is undoubtedly true, but when we study the concrete historical phenomenon some

questions arise. Roman society by itself was already beginning to organize economically

with some feudal institutions. Why was this change sudden? Why did and empire had to

collapse shortly after if the economy seemed to be spontaneously organizing without

having too much opposition?

These questions become disturbing and make us think twice on the relation of the economic

process with the fall of the Roman Empire when we analyze what follows:

10“The fall of the roman empire, when considered from a political perspective,

meant the end of the succession of emperors who had governed it from Rome,

Milan or Ravenna. The provinces of the empire were transformed into

10 Ibid

23

kingdoms governed by barbarian chieftains and dominated by non-roman elite.

However this transition had no match on the economic field.”

“The end of the imperial regime was followed by a radical change in economy

(…) however, during the V century many economic changes were produced by

the ones who invaded the Roman Empire”

We can simply answer that the economic change was already on progress, however the

legal and political superstructure of the roman empire remained the same, the institutions,

the governing class, the role it fulfilled, the values and ways, remained alike what was born

on the insides of the slave society, and what, as consequence, was not useful nor

contributing to the reproduction of the feudal system, had to be destroyed too.

(And it is worth adding that social changes do not happen gradually, the are not quantitative

but qualitative and suddenly changing instead; that happens because society moves through

processes of dialectical change as Hegel would propose and Marx and other Marxists

would later prove, evidence is on the process we are analyzing, however whether society

changes dialectically or not is not the subject of this monograph and may be consulted on

magnificent works made by people with an accuracy vastly superior than mine)

You could also ask in response, then why were the latifundia and the institution of slavery

important parts of society in spite of their obsolescence? Why were the slaves still legally

property of their masters and consequentially, as in other matters, the coactive apparatus of

the state still protected the patricians, repressed rebellions and kept trying to preserve the

old order? Why was change only slow, subtle, if the economic conditions were demanding

the change of the old economic ordering? Why did not society change once and for all if it

was convenient for the majority of the people?

Because the institutional shell, the regime, the legal and political superstructure, or

whatever name you want for it; was preventing the change that would eventually reach a

24

stage in which it would have to break with everything against what was convenient for

society (and was not for the patricians, as we will analyze ahead) and that is how the old

imperial regime met an ending.

An agreement between the classes could have been achieved, however, in the moments of

historical change the question is who will be on top and who on the bottom of the new

society in gestation period. The patricians, who were supported by the old political regime,

naturally would not leave the grip of society loose, just for charity. The slaves and the

peasants, future feudal serfs, would not have wanted the dictatorship of the patricians,

which had oppressed them and their ancestors and had failed to provide them with

acceptable standards of living they could have achieved on their own, to prevail. These

goals could hardly be reconciled, this is called class struggle, and it is evident that this

struggle was the motor of the people in destroying the imperial regime. We will be having a

detailed analysis of the role of each class on the fall of the empire.

This does not mean we have concluded historical materialism to be false. What Marxist

theory says on historical process matters is that the economy determines at a last stage the

basic answer to the when, where and why of the historical phenomena. Nevertheless it also

says history is a product of human action. How does it agree on both of these statements?

Let us see a comment from Engels:

11“Men make their own history, whatever its outcome may be, in that each

person follows his own consciously desired end, and it is precisely the resultant

of these many wills operating in different directions, and of their manifold

effects upon the outer world, that constitutes history (…) On the other hand, the

further question arises: What driving forces in turn stand behind these motives?

What are the historical forces which transform themselves into these motives in

the brains of the actors?”

11 ENGELS, Friedrich. Ludwig Feuerbach y el fin de la filosofía clásica alemana. Marxists Internet Archive. Online Edition at http://www.marxists.org/espanol/m-e/1880s/feuer/index.htm. February 2007

25

And Marx adds: 12“It is not the consciousness of men (what we believe we need or we want)

that determines their existence, but their social existence (we identify it with the economic

class) that determines their consciousness.”

Why is the social existence the class? The question is deeply interesting, however as in

many others, it has already been answered and proved on main Marxists works, we will

answer with a simple comment from Engels again: 13“… thoughts are not the same in a

palace or in a cabin”

Finally, to organize what has been said so far, we shall see the opinion of Georges Politzer,

Hungarian Marxist, psychologist and philosopher:

14“We see at the last stage that the moving forces of history are presented in the

following chain:

a) History is human made.

b) The action that makes history is determined by will.

c) This will is a manifestation of ideas..

d) These ideas are a reflection of the social conditions of living.

e) These social conditions are produced by classes and their struggle.

f) Classes are a product of the economic conditions.”

2.2 CLASS STRUGGLE IN THE END OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

12 Karl Marx, Op. Cit.13 Friedrich Engels, Op. Cit.14 POLITZER, Georges. Cursos de Filosofía. Editores Mexicanos Unidos. 1998

26

2.2.1 Classes in the fall of the Roman Empire and their roles.

We have defined why the empire fell, but we are still missing how for a complete

explanation. We have also seen that the direct means of historical change are human

actions, and, that the will behind those actions is determined by the economic classes; we

are now analyzing the role they fulfilled and the situation where they ended up.

Let us begin by patricians, whose role could only be reactionary, against change and

progress. As holders of the power of the state and the property of the means of production,

they were entitled to be on the loosing side when society moved on; the superstructure

would favor them until the last emperor fell and the imperial regime was dissolved.

However as the end got close, pushed by local unhappiness and the obsolescence of

slavery, patricians would moderate their attitude towards the slaves; several were freed and

exploitation was softened. Of course, those measures were not enough because, as we have

seen, the problem was not lying on will or desire as it was a structural economic problem.

Patricians were replaced as the dominant class by feudal aristocracy, mostly integrated by

the leaders of the invading barbarians; patricians were, as a class, the first victim of

barbarian invasions.

Plebs were basically who, not being slaves, were not traditional roman citizens; in the

beginning they were the basis of roman economy, being free peasants with their own lands,

the fed themselves and generated enough surplus for maintaining the superstructure of the

initial small roman regime and its relatively small dominant class. The roman expansion

and the application of the slave mode of production placed them on the inferior side as the

society deepened the application of the economic model, since it was implanted plebs

started abandoning their traditional place and, as we have seen, the ones who did not

become slaves or starved adopted the status of coloni, similar to feudal serfdom.

27

The plebeian situation was not significantly different than of the slaves; the played a

progressive role favorable to change as they participated, along with slaves, in the revolts

that preceded the fall of the regime, we cannot know for sure but they likely received their

conquerors with open arms. The sack of cities would not make barbarians very popular,

however plebs were mostly rural inhabitants, they would greet their invaders anxious of

having someone leading society before it fell on anarchy, anxious of having their means of

subsistence granted by being made serfs of new feudal lords. Plebs began and ended as

simple people.

Concerning slaves, the situation is rather obvious, they were, as a class, born because of the

slave mode of production; they were always on the inferior layer of society, they were the

class directly exploited by the economic model; their role could only be progressive, and

they exerted pressure with some degree of success over the regime, with revolts, as the

improvement of their situation towards the end shows. Due to the distance these events

have from the present day, it is hard to know how significant and effective the pressure they

exerted was, we cannot accurately state if it actually weakened the regime or if it would

have been capable of finally destroying it. Truth is the slave activity was not the

fundamental factor; Odoacer, the man who deposed the last western emperor, Romulus

Augustus, was not slave but barbarian, this leaves us several questions.

2.2.2 Ideas concerning the role of barbarians in the fall of the Roman Empire.

On practice barbarians were the ones who made the final strike on the imperial regime.

Being slaves the oppressed class, according to theory they should have been the ones who

stroke the system to erect themselves as a dominant class, however it is not how it

happened, we can state several answers to this problem. First we must not forget that theory

is abstract by definition, and, as the degree of abstraction is higher, theory is more solid and

28

coherent by itself, but more distant from reality, we must also remember theory is still not a

perfect tool in the analysis of society, there is room for improvement.

We have two ways of conceiving barbarians; the first one, as part of an independent social-

economic formation, a different micro system that took advantage of the fall of the roman

empire to establish a dominant mode of production that was, on practice, already being

applied by them, it was reasonable for them to fight for making their mode of production

the dominant one. We must, of course, take into account that the fall of the empire was not

a phenomenon isolated from the world context, when judging on isolation, things should

happen the way theory says, truth is the roman empire was not isolated from the world, and,

even though it was the last fortress of the slave mode of production, it was not the first of

feudalism. It makes sense to think other nations would take advantage of the decomposing

roman regime to impose the feudal mode without much resistance and with advantages for

the one who would assume the task. In other words, being the conditions given for the fall

of the Roman Empire, barbarians made themselves supported by the oppressed classes on

struggle and took things one step ahead.

We can also take barbarians as another economic class, that, even though was not inside the

roman economic system on a strict sense, was on a wider perspective as barbarians were the

“class” from which slaves were gathered, on that sense they were the basis of the economic

system. We could even dare to imagine the slaves not as a class, but, given the oppression

of the system, as tools only, understanding barbarians as the class actually alienated, it

would be natural for them to be, taking support on the progressive sectors, who shook the

domination the patricians had in a sense imposed over them, and to consequently take the

role of dominant class on the new feudal society.

29

3. CONCLUSIONS

The main conclusion of this monograph is, obviously, the answer to the initial question, the

explanation given from the historical materialism standpoint to the fall of the Roman

Empire, the answer is developed through the entire body of the monograph, but we can

shortly summarize as follows:

We will begin from the tribal society. The development of productive forces gradually

made the production of surplus possible, the appropriation of this surplus freed a layer of

population from the need to work, the primitive community thus dissolved, however, as it

was not a society made of hostile classes, there were no relations of exploitation, nor a state

that protected the obsolete relations of production. The slave mode of production was then

born without any conflict or revolution.

The slave mode of production, as its name point out, is based on the exploitation of slaves,

it carries the need of constant expansion through war, and the roman empire indeed

conquered the civilized world; however, a time came in which the conditions prevented

further expansion and the contradictions inherent to the slave mode of production

flourished, the necessity of changing the economic model consequently appeared. The

development of productive forces was given in spite of slavery; the deficient part was its

application. Productive forces made a more efficient economic model possible and it

became necessary to break with the old regime. The change was set to happen as the need,

the possibility and the agents were at order.

The superstructure matching the slave society became obsolete, the classes oppressed by it

start rebelling and weakening the system, it finally falls, no longer existing an institution

preventing the birth of new relations of production, they are then fully established and a

new matching superstructure emerges. The Roman Empire falls and feudalism is born.

30

Other conclusions can be extracted from the work. By analyzing the observations

concerning the barbarian role, we can draw a small theory that may be applied to the

modern world. We have seen that the class (if we take it that way) that fulfilled the

revolutionary role were the barbarians, with some “oddities” as not being exactly inside the

roman economic system, not being the class directly exploited, but, in spite of that,

suffering part of the alienation or oppression produced by the system.

The latter could mean that the revolutionary subject may not be the class directly exploited,

sometimes this class does not seem to have enough strength to overthrow the system, in this

case, being the conditions given for the destruction of an obsolete regime weakened by its

contradictions, maybe the classes only secondary exploited by the system are the ones to

take the revolutionary role. What does this mean in the present-day society? Maybe the

revolutionary role does not belong to the proletarians of developed states, as the practice

seems to show. To whom does it belong then? Does it belong to the proletarians of

peripheral countries? Maybe it belongs to the remnants of past modes of production, such

as the peasantry of undeveloped countries? Or it belongs to the classes that are being subtly

displaced to the inferior layers of society as globalization marches on, like national

bourgeoisies or middle classes? Are them all revolutionary subjects?

So far we cannot provide an answer; the discussion on the revolutionary subject is one of

the most important on modern Marxism. Various theories are disputed, orthodox Marxism

still aims to the standard proletarian; several neomarxists like Hardt or Negri speak about a

concept called “multitude”; there are those who revive ideas from the old dissidences of

Marxism, like the concept of “student intelligence” from Marcuse, member of the Frankfurt

School. There are as many as possible answers or questions.

We have seen the slave society in the Roman Empire was on decomposition from the

century I to the IV century a.d. Feudalism was born in Europe around the IV century and

extinguished about a millennium later. Social-economic formations seem to take centuries

31

in order to be established, develop, decompose, and disappear or change. If capitalism is to

fall as Marx predicted the process must take several centuries.

We argue that there are in fact no reasons to believe it will not fall; we have concluded that

historical materialism successfully explains the roman fall dating more than a millennia

ago. As Marx and Engels’ works are read it is also noticeable that they accurately explain

the XIX century English society or happenings such as the First World War. Intuitively we

may state that if historical materialism explains deeply different conjunctions; Europe a

thousand and a half years ago, and Europe a century and a half ago

Our proximity with the past centuries may prevent us from seeing them from an objective

perspective, but the intellectual effort has to be made, the theory must be improved along

with the practice to produce better, more specific, and more truthful analysis, with the aim

on the future, both short-term and long-term. The prize will be a better understanding of

history and society, and, as consequence, the factors that determine the destiny both

assigned to, and built by, our species, our peoples, our nations, our cities, the people

surrounding us, and finally, ourselves.

There are many fields of development for the human being on a collective an individual

level, on any intellectual or emotional or physical matter or whatever; but, if things are

about understanding society, about judging the future of USA, of preaching on the

economy of Asiatic countries, or criticizing the moral values of the Colombian youth, or

comprehending the critical conscience of Chilean or French students, or grasping the causes

of the transport strikes that periodically paralyze Bogota; it is evident the proposed way is

the best one.

Besides the latter, as a student of eleventh grade, the conclusion is the consciousness on the

ability to develop works with a complexity and magnitude, that, even though small

compared with a real work, are unreachable for an individual without receiving the years of

education that constitute the tools for the making of this monograph, which is, in a sense,

32

an evidence, a consequence and an achievement of what has been learnt through these

years.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

33

BORÍZOV, ZHAMIN, MAKAROVA. Diccionario de Economía Política. 1965

ENGELS, Friedrich. Ludwig Feuerbach y el fin de la filosofía clásica alemana. 1886

HARNECKER, Marta. Conceptos Elementales de Materialismo Histórico. 1969

KUUSINEN, Otto. Principios de Materialismo Histórico. 1962

MARX, Karl. Contribución a la crítica de la economía política. 1859

________, Precapitalist Economic Formations, 1858

MARXISTS INTERNET ARCHIVE. Glossary of Terms: Slave Society,

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/l.htm

NIKITIN. Economía Política. 1959

POLITZER, Georges. Principios Elementales de Filosofía. 1949

________. Principios Fundamentales de Filosofía. 1985

POUNDS, Norman. Historia Económica de Europa Medieval. 1981

WIKIPEDIA. Modo de Producción, http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modo_de_producción

________. Modo de Producción Esclavista,

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modo_de_producción_esclavista

________. Imperio Romano, http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperio_romano

________. Historical Materialism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism

________. Decadencia del Imperio Romano,

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decadencia_del_imperio_romano

34

________. Relations of Production,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_of_production

35