K. Marx and Fr. Engels are iconic figures in the ideology of socialism. Their theory formed the basis of the socialist revolution in Russia. In Soviet Russia, their works were actively studied and served as the basis for such disciplines as scientific communism, dialectical materialism, historical materialism; the theory of socio-economic formations formed the basis of Soviet historical science. However, according to N. A. Berdyaev, the revolution in Russia took place "in the name of Marx, but not according to Marx" [1]. It is known that the founders of Marxism, for various reasons, did not see Russia at the head of the socialist movement. According to them, “hatred of the Russians was and continues to be among the Germans their first revolutionary passion …“a merciless life-and-death struggle”against the Slavs, betraying the revolution, the struggle for destruction and merciless terrorism are not in the interests of Germany, but in the interests of the revolution”[2, 306]. Also known are their derogatory statements about the character and abilities of the Russians, for example, about their “almost unparalleled ability to trade in its lower forms, to use favorable circumstances and to cheat inextricably linked with this: it’s not without reason that Peter I said that one Russian will cope with three Jews”[3, 539]. In the light of such contradictions, the problem of the attitude of K. Marx and F. Engels to Russia, their ideas about its past and future, about its position on the world stage, seems interesting. It is worth noting that in this matter K. Marx and F. Engels were of the same mind; F. Engels himself in his work "The Foreign Policy of Russian Tsarism" noted that, describing the negative influence of Russian tsarism on the development of Europe, he continues the work of his late friend.
By 1933, the canonical image of the leaders of communist ideology was formed: first from the left - Marx, then Engels, and then Lenin and Stalin. Moreover, the first three are looking “somewhere there” and only the gaze of “Comrade Stalin” is directed to those who are in front of the poster. "Big brother is looking at you!"
Knowledge and opinion of K. Marx and F. Engels about Russia were based on various sources. They were aware of the news about the Crimean and Russian-Turkish (1877 - 1878) wars. Of course, they relied on the works of Russian revolutionaries, with whom they polemized: M. A. Bakunin, P. L. Lavrov, P. N. Tkacheva. Analyzing the socio-economic situation in Russia, F. Engels referred to the "Collection of materials on artels in Russia" and the work of Flerovsky "The situation of the working class in Russia." They wrote articles for the American Encyclopedia on the War of 1812 based on Toll's memoirs, which they considered the best account of these events. V. N. Kotov in the lectures “K. Marx and F. Engels about Russia and the Russian people”notes that“among the books read by K. Marx and F. Engels there are works by Karamzin, Soloviev, Kostomarov, Belyaev, Sergeevich and a number of other historians [4]. True, this is not documented; in "Chronological Notes" K. Marx sets out the events of European, not Russian history. Thus, the knowledge of K. Marx and F. Engels about Russia is based on various sources, but they can hardly be called deep and thorough.
The first thing that catches the eye when studying the views of the founders of Marxism on Russia is the desire to emphasize the differences between Russians and Europeans. So, speaking about Russian history, K. Marx only at its initial stage - Kievan Rus - recognizes the similarity with the European one. The empire of the Rurikids (he does not use the name Kievan Rus) is, in his opinion, an analogue of the empire of Charlemagne, and its rapid expansion is "a natural consequence of the primitive organization of the Norman conquests … and the need for further conquests was supported by a continuous influx of new Varangian adventurers" [5]. It is clear from the text that K. Marx considered this period of Russian history not as a stage in the development of the Russian people, but as one of the special cases of the actions of the German barbarians who flooded Europe at that time. The philosopher believes that the best proof of this thought is that practically all Kiev princes were enthroned by the power of the Varangian arms (although he does not give specific facts). Karl Marx completely rejects the influence of the Slavs on this process, recognizing only the Novgorod Republic as a Slavic state. When the supreme power passed from the Normans to the Slavs, the Rurik empire naturally disintegrated, and the Mongol-Tatar invasion finally destroyed its remnants. Since then, the paths of Russia and Europe have diverged. Arguing about this period of Russian history, K. Marx shows a generally reliable, but rather superficial knowledge of its events: for example, he neglects even such a well-known fact that the khan who established the Mongol-Tatar yoke in Russia was not called Genghis Khan, but Baty. One way or another, “the cradle of Muscovy was the bloody swamp of Mongol slavery, and not the harsh glory of the Norman era” [5].
The chasm between Russia and Europe could not be filled by the activities of Peter I, which K. Marx called the desire to "civilize" Russia. The German lands, according to Karl Marx, "supplied him in abundance with officials, teachers and sergeants who were supposed to drill the Russians, giving them that external touch of civilization that would prepare them for the perception of the technology of Western peoples, without infecting them with the ideas of the latter" [5]. In their desire to show the dissimilarity of Russians to Europeans, the founders of Marxism go far enough. Thus, in a letter to F. Engels, K. Marx approvingly speaks of professor Dukhinsky's theory that “the Great Russians are not Slavs … real Muscovites, that is, residents of the former Grand Duchy of Moscow, mostly Mongols or Finns, etc., as well as those located further to the east part of Russia and its southeastern parts … the name Rus was usurped by the Muscovites. They are not Slavs and do not belong to the Indo-Germanic race at all, they are intrus who need to be driven across the Dnieper again”[6, 106]. Speaking about this theory, K. Marx quotes the word “discoveries” in quotation marks, which shows that he does not accept it as an immutable truth. However, further on, he quite clearly indicates his opinion: “I would like Dukhinsky to be right, and that at least this view began to dominate among the Slavs” [6, 107].
A very correct poster in terms of heraldry rules. All people look from right to left.
Speaking about Russia, the founders of Marxism also note its economic backwardness. In the work "On the social issue in Russia" Fr. Engels accurately and reasonably notes the main trends and problems in the development of the post-reform Russian economy: concentration of land in the hands of the nobility; land tax paid by peasants; a huge mark-up on the land purchased by the peasants; the rise of usury and financial fraud; disorder of the financial and tax system; corruption; the destruction of the community against the background of intensified attempts by the state to preserve it; illiteracy of workers, contributing to the exploitation of their labor; disorder in agriculture, lack of land among the peasants and labor force among the landlords. On the basis of the above data, the thinker draws a disappointing but fair conclusion: “there is no other country in which, with all the primitive savagery of bourgeois society, capitalist parasitism would be so developed, as in Russia, where the whole country, the entire mass of the people is crushed and entangled in its nets. "[3, 540].
Along with the economic backwardness of Russia, K. Marx and F. Engels note its military weakness. According to Fr. Engels, Russia is practically impregnable in defense due to its vast territory, harsh climate, impassable roads, lack of a center, the capture of which would indicate the outcome of the war, and a persistent, passive population; however, when it comes to an attack, all these advantages turn into disadvantages: the vast territory makes it difficult to move and supply the army, the passivity of the population turns into lack of initiative and inertia, the absence of a center gives rise to unrest. Such reasoning, of course, is not devoid of logic and is based on knowledge of the history of the wars waged by Russia, but F. Engels makes significant factual errors in them. Thus, he believes that Russia occupies a territory "with an exceptionally racially homogeneous population" [7, 16]. It is difficult to say for what reasons the thinker ignored the multinationality of the country's population: he simply did not possess such information or considered it insignificant in this matter. In addition, F. Engels shows some limitation, saying that Russia is vulnerable only from Europe.
Poster dedicated to the XVIII Congress of the CPSU (b).
The founders of Marxism have a desire to belittle Russia's military successes and the significance of its victories. So, setting out the history of the liberation of Russia from the Mongol-Tatar yoke, K. Marx does not mention a word about the Kulikovo battle. According to him, “when the Tatar monster finally gave up his ghost, Ivan came to his deathbed, rather as a doctor who predicted death and used it in his own interests, than as a warrior who dealt the mortal blow” [5]. The participation of Russia in the wars with Napoleon is considered by the classics of Marxism to be a means of realizing Russia's aggressive plans, in particular, regarding the partition of Germany. The fact that the actions of the Russian army (in particular, the suicidal transition of the army under the leadership of Suvorov across the Alps) saved Austria and Prussia from complete defeat and conquest, and were carried out precisely in their interests, remains unnoticed. Engels describes his vision of the anti-Napoleonic wars as follows: “It (Russia) can only be waged by such wars when the allies of Russia must bear the main burden, expose their territory, turned into a theater of military operations, to devastation and exhibit the greatest mass of fighters, while how the Russian troops play the role of reserves, which spare in most battles, but which in all major battles have the honor of deciding the final outcome of the case, associated with relatively small casualties; so it was in the war of 1813-1815”[7, 16-17]. Even the plan for the campaign of 1812 for the strategic retreat of the Russian army was developed, according to him, by the Prussian general Ful, and M. B. Barclay de Tolly was the only general who resisted the useless and stupid panic and thwarted attempts to save Moscow. Here there is a blatant disregard for historical facts, which looks strange given the fact that K. Marx and F. Engels wrote a series of articles about this war for the American Encyclopedia, referring to the memoirs of K. F. Tolya, who fought on the side of Russia. The hostility to Russia is so great that the attitude towards its participation in the anti-Napoleonic wars is expressed in a very offensive form: “the Russians still boast that they decided the fall of Napoleon with their countless troops” [2, 300].
And here there are already four of them. Now Mao also got close …
Having a low opinion of the military power of Russia, Russian diplomacy K. Marx and F. Engels considered her to be her strongest side, and her foreign policy successes were considered the most important achievement on the world stage. The foreign policy strategy of Russia (K. Marx calls pre-Petrine Russia Muscovy) grew up “in the terrible and vile school of Mongol slavery” [5], which dictated certain methods of diplomacy. The Moscow princes, the founders of the new state, Ivan Kalita and Ivan III, adopted the tactics of bribery, pretense, and use of the interests of some groups against others from the Mongol Tatars. They rubbed into the confidence of the Tatar khans, set them up against their opponents, used the confrontation of the Golden Horde with the Crimean Khanate and the Novgorod boyars with the merchants and the poor, the ambitions of the Pope in order to strengthen secular power over the Orthodox Church. The prince “had to turn into a system all the tricks of the lowest slavery and apply this system with the patient tenacity of a slave. Open power itself could enter into the system of intrigue, bribery and hidden usurpation only as intrigue. He could not strike without first giving the poison. He had one goal, and the ways to achieve it are numerous. To invade, using a deceitful hostile force, to weaken this force by precisely this use and, in the end, to overthrow it with the help of the means created by itself”[5].
Further, the Russian tsars actively used the legacy of the Moscow princes. In his work Foreign Policy of Russian Tsarism, Engels, with a mixture of hostility and admiration, describes in detail the subtlest diplomatic game played by Russian diplomacy in the era of Catherine II and Alexander I (though not forgetting to emphasize the German origin of all great diplomats). Russia, according to him, remarkably played on the contradictions between the major European powers - England, France and Austria. She could interfere with impunity in the internal affairs of all countries under the pretext of protecting order and traditions (if playing into the hands of the conservatives) or enlightenment (if it was necessary to make friends with the liberals). It was Russia during the American War of Independence that first formulated the principle of armed neutrality, which was subsequently actively used by diplomats of all countries (at that time, this position weakened Britain's maritime superiority). She actively used nationalist and religious rhetoric to expand her influence in the Ottoman Empire: she invaded its territory under the pretext of protecting the Slavs and the Orthodox Church, provoking uprisings of the conquered peoples, which, according to Fr. Engels, they did not live badly at all. At the same time, Russia was not afraid of defeat, since Turkey was obviously a weak rival. Through bribery and diplomatic intrigue, Russia for a long time maintained the fragmentation of Germany and kept Prussia dependent. Perhaps this is one of the reasons for the hostility of K. Marx and F. Engels towards Russia. It was Russia, according to F. Engels, that erased Poland from the world map, giving it part of Austria and Prussia. By doing this, she killed two birds with one stone: she eliminated a restless neighbor and subjugated Austria and Prussia for a long time. “A piece of Poland was the bone that the queen threw to Prussia to make her sit quietly for a whole century on the Russian chain” [7, 23]. Thus, the thinker completely blames Russia for the destruction of Poland, forgetting to mention the interest of Prussia and Austria.
"Holy Trinity" - lost two!
Russia, according to thinkers, is constantly nurturing plans of conquest. The goal of the Moscow princes was to subjugate the Russian lands, the work of Peter I's life was to strengthen the Baltic coast (that is why, according to K. Marx, he moved the capital to the newly conquered lands), Catherine II and her heirs seek to seize Constantinople in order to control the Black and part of the Mediterranean Sea. The thinkers add to this the wars of conquest in the Caucasus. Along with the expansion of economic influence, they see another goal of such a policy. To maintain the tsarist power and the power of the nobility of Russia, constant foreign policy successes are necessary, which create the illusion of a strong state and distract the people from internal problems (thereby freeing the authorities from the need to solve them). A similar trend is typical for all countries, but K. Marx and F. Engels show it precisely on the example of Russia. In their critical fervor, the founders of Marxism view the facts in a somewhat one-sided way. Thus, they greatly exaggerate rumors about the prosperity of the Serbian peasants under the yoke of the Turks; they are silent about the danger that threatened Russia from Poland and Lithuania (by the 18th century these countries could no longer seriously threaten Russia, but nevertheless were a constant source of unrest); do not report details of the life of the Caucasian peoples under the rule of Persia and ignore the fact that many of them, for example, Georgia, themselves asked Russia for help (perhaps they simply did not have this information).
Only one looks at the future shift. Two of them are not interested at all.
Nevertheless, the main reason for the negative attitude of K. Marx and F. Engels to the Russian Empire is its irreconcilable hatred of the revolution and progressive changes in society. This hatred stems both from the very nature of despotic power and from the low level of development of society. In Russia, the struggle of despotism against freedom has a long history. Even Ivan III, according to K. Marx, realized that an indispensable condition for the existence of a single strong Muscovy was the destruction of Russian liberties, and threw his forces to fight against the remnants of republican power on the outskirts: in Novgorod, Poland, the Cossack republic (it is not entirely clear what he had in the mind of K. Marx, speaking about it). Therefore, he "tore off the chains in which the Mongols chained Muscovy, only in order to entangle the Russian republics with them" [5]. Further, Russia successfully benefited from the European revolutions: thanks to the Great French Revolution, she was able to subdue Austria and Prussia and destroy Poland (the resistance of the Poles distracted Russia from France and helped the revolutionaries). The fight against Napoleon, in which Russia played a decisive role, was also a fight against revolutionary France; after the victory, Russia enlisted the support of the restored monarchy. Following the same scheme, Russia acquired allies and expanded its sphere of influence after the revolutions of 1848. Having concluded the Holy Alliance with Prussia and Austria, Russia became a stronghold of reaction in Europe.
Here's a funny trinity, isn't it? “Let's drink to the fullest, our age is short, and all the impure power will go out of here and this liquid will turn into pure water. Let there be water, drink gentlemen!"
By suppressing revolutions in Europe, Russia is increasing its influence over its governments, eliminating potential danger to itself, and also distracting its own people from internal problems. If we take into account that K. Marx and F. Engels considered the socialist revolution to be a natural result of the development of Europe, it becomes clear why they believed that Russia by its interference disrupts the natural course of development of European countries and for victory the workers' party must fight for life and death. with Russian tsarism.
Speaking about the vision of Russia by K. Marx and F. Engels, it is necessary to note one more essential detail: the opposition of government and people. In any country, including Russia, the government very rarely defends the interests of the people. The Mongol-Tatar yoke contributed to the strengthening of the Moscow princes, but dried up the soul of the people. Peter I “by moving the capital broke those natural bonds that connected the system of seizures of the former Muscovite tsars with the natural abilities and aspirations of the great Russian race. By placing his capital on the seashore, he threw down an open challenge to the anti-sea instincts of this race and reduced it to the position of simply the mass of his political mechanism”[5]. The diplomatic games of the 18th - 19th centuries, which raised Russia to unprecedented power, were occupied by foreigners in the Russian service: Pozzo di Borgo, Lieven, K. V. Nesselrode, A. Kh. Benckendorff, Medem, Meyendorff and others under the leadership of the German woman Catherine II of her heirs. The Russian people, in the opinion of the founders of Marxism, are hardy, brave, tenacious, but passive, absorbed in private interests. Thanks to these properties of the people, the Russian army is invincible when the outcome of the battle is decided by the close masses. However, the mental stagnation of the people and the low level of development of society leads to the fact that the people do not have their own will and completely trusts the legends that power spreads. “In the eyes of the vulgar-patriotic public, the glory of victories, successive conquests, the power and external brilliance of tsarism more than outweigh all its sins, all despotism, all injustices and arbitrariness” [7, 15]. This led to the fact that the Russian people, even resisting the injustice of the system, never rebelled against the tsar. Such passivity of the people is a necessary condition for a successful foreign policy based on conquest and suppression of progress.
However, later K. Marx and F. Engels came to the conclusion that after the defeat of Russia in the Crimean War, the outlook of the people changed. The people began to be critical of the authorities, the intelligentsia promotes the spread of revolutionary ideas, and industrial development is becoming more and more important for foreign policy success. Therefore, a revolution is possible in Russia at the end of the 19th century: in the preface to the Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto, K. Marx and F. Engels call Russia the vanguard of the revolutionary movement in Europe. Thinkers do not deny that the revolution in Russia, due to the peculiarities of the country's development, will take place differently than it could have taken place in Europe: due to the fact that most of the land in Russia is in communal ownership, the Russian revolution will be predominantly peasant, and the community will become a cell new society. The Russian revolution will be the signal for revolutions in other European countries.
Also, the trinity was very well-known at one time: "Should we go there, Comandante, there?" "There, just there!"
The socialist revolution will not only transform Russia, but will also significantly change the balance of power in Europe. F. Engels in 1890 denotes the existence in Europe of two military-political alliances: Russia with France and Germany with Austria and Italy. The union of Germany, Austria and Italy exists, according to him, exclusively under the influence of the "Russian threat" in the Balkans and the Mediterranean Sea. In the event of the liquidation of the tsarist regime in Russia, this threat will disappear, tk. Russia will switch to internal problems, aggressive Germany, left alone, will not dare to start a war. European countries will build relations on a new basis of partnership and progress. Such reasoning cannot be unconditionally taken on faith. Friedrich Engels shifts all responsibility for the upcoming world war to Russia and ignores the desire of European countries to redistribute colonies outside Europe, because of which war would still become inevitable.
Here they are - the mountains of books of the works of Marx and Engels. Unsurprisingly, the country lacked paperwork for the Adventure Library.
Thus, in the views of K. Marx and F. Engels, there is a duality in relation to Russia. On the one hand, they emphasize its dissimilarity with Europe and its negative role in the development of the West, on the other hand, their criticism is directed at the government, and not at the Russian people. In addition, the subsequent course of Russian history forced the founders of Marxism to reconsider their attitude towards Russia and recognize its possible role in historical progress.
References:
1. Berdyaev N. A. The origins and meaning of Russian communism //
2. Engels F. Democratic Pan-Slavism // K. Marx and F. Engels. Compositions. Edition 2. - M., State Publishing House of Political Literature. - 1962.-- v. 6.
3. Marx K. On the social issue in Russia // K. Marx and F. Engels. Compositions. Edition 2. - M., State Publishing House of Political Literature. - 1962.-- v. 18.
4. Kotov V. N. K. Marx and F. Engels about Russia and the Russian people. -
Moscow, "Knowledge". - 1953//
5. Marx K. Exposing the diplomatic history of the 18th century //
6. K. Marx - Fr. Engels in Manchester // K. Marx and F. Engels. Compositions. Edition 2. - M., State Publishing House of Political Literature. - 1962.-- v. 31.
7. Engels Fr. Foreign policy of Russian tsarism // K. Marx and F. Engels. Compositions. Edition 2. - M., State Publishing House of Political Literature. - 1962.-- v. 22.
