118 THE SOCIAL THEORY OF GEORG SIMMEL 
who, while being wholly personal, is capable of keeping his 
own person in the background. The impersonal and ob- 
jective character of such struggles therefore lends them a 
certain nobility. But, once the differentiation is accom- 
plished and the struggle objectified, there is no further re- 
serve. Any moderation would be not only inconsistent, 
but a treason to the cause. On the basis of the consensus 
between the parties that each fights merely for the issue at 
stake and without personal considerations, the struggle is 
fought out without personal bitterness, but also without 
any moderation which might result from the intermingling 
of personal elements. 
This form of antithesis between unity and antagonism 
intensifies conflict most perceptibly perhaps in cases where 
both parties actually pursue the same interest. This is the 
case, for instance, in scientific controversies, in which the 
issue is the establishment of some truth. In such a case 
any concession, any polite consent to stop short of the full 
exposition of the errors of the opponent, any conclusion 
of peace previous to decisive victory, would be treason 
against the factual objective issue for the sake of which the 
personal element was to be excluded. 
Social struggles have often taken this form. This has, 
for instance, been the case with the class struggle since 
Marx. Since it has been recognized that the position of the 
wage-earner is determined by the objective forms and 
characteristics of the economic system independently of 
the power and the will of individual persons, the personal 
bitterness incident to the general struggle and the local 
conflicts has much diminished. The entrepreneur is no 
longer thought of as a bloodsucker and a damnable egoist. 
The laborer is no longer assumed to act merely from sinful 
greed. Each party is ceasing to interpret the other’s tac- 
tics and demands in terms of mere egoism and malevolence.