Professor Parker gave a plain statement of Toynbeeism, Dr. Munz a mechanistic attack, and Mr. Miller a eulogistic apologia. Toynbee's theory of history cannot be stated fairly in a few lines, but let us do our best.

His historical unit—to the orthodox historian the "nation," to the Marxian a gradually developing whole-is the "civilization," a remarkably vague term which he can apply to the most heterogeneous collection of human aggregations. For example, he regards the Western and the Balkan civilizations as distinct units, and combines Greece and Rome in one?

Right, having named his term, without anywhere very adequately defining it, he proceeds to abstract laws of development from the facts of a hypothetical history divided into these units. First general law—that civilizations begin, grow and break down. Very good, they all have, so they all will. That goes for me loo. Thus we have the first concrete inference from Toynbeeism, for the present world—civilization is doomed? Toynbeeism is therefore firstly the historical philosophy of pessimism.

Now, how do civilizations rise, develop and break down? By the second law—"challenge and, response." Another vague term which can cover almost every factor in human progress. It seems to mean little more than "cause and effect." and might as well have been left unsaid. But this semi-dialectical "law." together with the third "law" which recognizes, in a cautious and fatalistic way, the existence of class division and conflict in all civilizations of the past, gives the key to where Toynbeeism comes from. It is Marx's shadow distorted. It is the conservative intelligentsia's answer to Marxism. But unfortunately it is not very satisfactory.

Harold Miller embraced Toynbeeism at once, for it places mind before matter, and sees religion as the most important factor in the shaping of human society. Methods of production have nothing to do with it.

Dr. Munz claimed that a general scientific view of history, as of anything, was impossible until we had command of all the facts. This statement is unfortunately contradicted by the history of every scientific hypothesis since Galileo, so I beg leave to ignore it. There Is no reason why we cannot abstract scientific laws of development from the history of human society as from any other subject—unless, of course, you believe that the world exists only in our senses, in which case you would jettison all science and stop eating.

Karl Knew

Professor Parker made this point quite forcibly. There can be a science of history, but it must be formulated by scientific method. Toynbee has Certainly not done that. He omits the really primary stuff of living altogether, and talks in abstractions. The impact of one form of society, economically superior, on another, is to Toynbee primarily a mental impact. Material things are not even important, apparently, let alone primary. Why! admitted the Professor shyly even Marx was more scientific than Toynbee! (Consternation.) Toynbee talks in metaphors. "Challenge and response" was merely an accident to human development, not the determining force, the sine qua non.

Ghandi came very near to proving that food comes first, and that therefore, in the aggregate, how society produces its needs shapes society. That is one up to Marx. Against Toynbee's pessimism. Marxism combines materialism with the observation that while each ruling class has been supplanted by another as modes of production changed, yet today there is no alternative exploiting class. The logical step forward from our type of moribund society, is to a socialism without classes. Marxism therefore looks forward with hope. Another one up to Marx.

Partisan.