I suppose that history should be more fixated on great wars and rebellions which affect the civilization, which is driven by larger-than-life sovereigns, whether solitary or engaged in court politics, and what's more important is the movement of these armies at the behest of elites, and the great court politics as a stage for a clash of ideologies, religions, and philosophies which influence imposition. Equal weight on both war and politics, as both are commanded by elites, who are vanguards of ideology, philosophy, or religion. That is the neoheroic view. Economy is important in the sense it is the production of raw materials by the laboring class of people, whether capitalist, socialist, manorial, or otherwise, these people, the commoners, are indispensable in their ability to produce the raw materials necessary, and any failure to produce is the liability of the sovereign, whose decisions caused such insufficiency. Meanwhile, this oppression is the result of something unintentional, usually. There's never malice or irrationality behind oppression. During the Holocaust, the Reichstag was more focused on improving the lives of the German people, and improving German civilization, and the Holocaust was more of an incidental, though intentional, means to achieve this aspiration to bettered civilization —the idea being to rid the German civilization of people percieved to be a detriment to the civilization, but this was the means to the end, as National Socialism is not innately genocidal as a core facet of the philosophy. The Holocaust was not intentionally malicious, the Reichstag was not plotting to be evil, they wanted to concieve of a superior model of state which benefits the German people, however misguided their approach was. Meanwhile, class does not matter, as each one serves a purpose, whether raw production (the vast majority of the population who are too egotistical to anything else), the warriors (who police to ensure those engaging in conscious, criminal deviance are swiftly reprimanded, as well as serving as a civilizational defense. Equally irrational, though paid to fight, or allotted property in exchange for combat services), and the leaders (those liable for every decision made in a civilization, whether oligarchic like in republics, leading to clashes, but also smarter, albeit more deliberative, decisions, or an absolute despotism, which is faster, but not always as smart as a republic.), though each class is more like a complimentary mutualism in relationship, albeit with a very distinct political hierarchy derived from reason. Only the aristocratic or oligarchis leadership class can rule, this is why we have senators and representatives and a president, none of whom are warriors or producers, because each class serves a function, and while in many models, one can move from class to class, it involves the abandonment of something, such as ex-military statesmen. This further provides a reason why there has never been a pure revolution, in the Marxist sense, for the victorious are often exceptional individuals or cabals of exceptional individuals, as these egotistical producers, or soldiers, that just want what immediately benefits them, and only care about their immediate surroundings, and are entirely benign as well as skiddish, and will not act unless given enough simple platitudes of grandeur and feelgoodisms. Every riot is organized, every protest is organized. The French Revolution would not have occured without Robespierre, the English Peasants' Revolt would not have occured without Wat Tyler, and the Third Servile War would have been impossible without Spartacus. Man exists harmoniously in hierarchy, in a complementary fashion, just as families exist in a naturally complimentary and mutual relationship, with a man being unable to raise a child without a woman, and vice versa. In this sense, culture is important, as, if there is some disruption to the family unit, the children will be raised in confusion and in deep dread, and a product of this will be a mentally unfit individual more disposed to poverty and crime, and if this sort of behavior permeates, it would threaten civilization. This is why the feudal and manorial lands of Europe were so stable, and why modern nations, in a multitude of other factors, are so unstable and morally corrupt. On morality itself, it exists objectively, however, it is separate from history, as the exceptional may choose to be moral or immoral according to this criteria, and so while their actions have a moral value, they are mostly amoral when committed, and usually accompanied by good intentions, even if morally flawed and misguided. These people, they follow leaders either because they are within immediate benefit, such as money or some kind of simple promise (never complex, never philosophical, often times mere flawed reasoning), or something more manipulative, as these people are egotistical, and, even if a contingent of people were oppressed, the bystander effect substantiates the notion that nothing would happen unless there is some vicar from the metaphorical heavens to raise forces, or in a political sense, utilize complex, intricate philosophical reasoning to persuade others to impose the will of the sovereign. However, it is more affirmed that the childhood effects of degenerate activity is an emotional matter, which most certainly influences mindset and emotions, informing one's conscious actions in a sense, though conscious action is inexcusable, ergo, man is responsible for his crimes, whether theft, rape, or otherwise, as an individual, and a mere victim of circumstance as postulated by Hobbes.