Page:The Hero in History.djvu/71

Rh or by the introduction of a rival siren who concerned herself exclusively with the boudoir rather than with politics.

But these are minor matters compared to the main assumption behind Plechanov’s argument.

This assumption is that the cause of a cause of a cause of a cause of an event is the cause of that event. To put it concretely: because the mode of economic production is the cause of the existing form of social organization, which is the cause of the failure to compel court favourites to refrain from interfering with affairs of state, which is the cause of Madame Pompadour’s refusal to yield to public opinion, which is the cause of deplorable effects on the history of France, it follows, according to Plechanov, that the mode of economic production is the cause of Madame Pompadour’s deplorable effects on French history.

This assumption is fallacious because it converts what is at best a necessary condition of the event to be explained into a sufficient cause of the event. Of course, French society had to exist before anyone could influence it. Of course, the state of French society at a given moment had to be what it was before any individual could have the specific effect he had on it at the next moment. But it by no means follows that because of the existence and state of French society any particular person had to influence it; or that because France had a certain form of organization, the individual who did influence it had to be good or bad, capable or foolish. Plechanov focuses his error in two key sentences. “Why was the fate of France in the hands of a man who totally lacked the ability and desire to serve society? Because such was the form of organization of that society.” The “because” is a complete non sequitur.

Plechanov’s assumption is fallacious because it overlooks what he had previously recognized, namely, that the final event of the series of causes he has built under it may be more relevantly