Here, at the BO, it has repeatedly stressed the banal truth that thinking without knowledge is completely useless, and, above all, for those who comment on someone’s materials only on the basis of what he thinks. That is the key to success in any business is knowledge. The latter, however, is acquired. I have repeatedly advised a number of VO visitors to turn to certain serious scientific journals for information, but, alas, there was no positive answer that, I supposedly used this advice. Therefore, apparently, it is necessary to gradually give here the scientific articles of my colleagues, one way or another revealing little-known pages. stories of our society. One of them is associated with the notorious Marxism. The profiles of Marx and Engels, along with the profile of Lenin and Stalin, were decorated with scenes of congresses and book covers. Later, Stalin's profile was removed, but the founders of the teachings, of course, remained. But is everyone aware of the fact that it was they who had written about Russia for a long time and what position did they occupy in the information field regarding it? And now my colleague in the department is a candidate of philosophical sciences, associate professor Martynova Olga Alexandrovna wrote an article about this which I really want to offer to the visitors of the VO website. The article is given without any additions, comments or corrections on my part. These illustrations are mine ... Well, to defuse the seriousness of the article itself a little!
K. Marx and Fr. Engels are symbolic figures in the ideology of socialism. Their theory formed the basis of the socialist revolution in Russia. In Russia of the Soviet period, 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” . 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, “the hatred of the Russians was and continues to be with the Germans their first revolutionary passion ...“ a merciless struggle for life and death ”with the Slavs betraying the revolution, the struggle for destruction and ruthless terrorism - not in the interests of Germany, but in the interests of revolution ”[2, 306]. Their derogatory statements about the character and abilities of Russians, for example, about their “almost unprecedented ability to trade in its lower forms, to use favorable circumstances and to the inextricably associated deceit, are known: it was not for nothing that Peter I said that one Russian would cope with by three Jews ”[3, 539]. In the light of such contradictions, the problem of the relationship of Karl Marx and F. Engels to Russia, their understanding of its past and future, and its position on the world stage, seems interesting. It should be noted that in this matter K. Marx and F. Engels were like-minded; 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 continued the work of his late friend.
Already by 1933, the canonical image of the image of the leaders of the communist ideology was formed: Marx, then Engels, and then Lenin and Stalin first on the left. Moreover, the first three look "somewhere there" and only the look of "Comrade Stalin" is directed at those who are in front of the poster. “Big brother is watching you!”
The knowledge and opinion of K. Marx and F. Engels about Russia was based on a variety of sources. They were in the know News about the Crimean and Russian-Turkish (1877 - 1878 gg.) wars. Of course, they relied on the works of Russian revolutionaries, with whom they argued: M.A. Bakunin, P.L. Lavrova, P.N. Tkacheva. Analyzing the socio-economic situation of Russia, F. Engels referred to the “Collection of materials on artels in Russia” and Flerovsky's work “The Situation of the Working Class in Russia”. They wrote articles for the American Encyclopedia on the War of 1812 based on Tolya’s memoirs, which they considered to be the best presentation of these events. V.N. Kotov in lectures "K. Marx and F. Engels on Russia and the Russian people ”notes that“ among the books read by K. Marx and F. Engels there are works by Karamzin, Solovyov, Kostomarov, Belyaev, Sergeyevich and several other historians . True, this is not documented; in "Chronological Notes" K. Marx sets forth the events of European, not Russian, history. Thus, the knowledge of K. Marx and F. Engels about Russia is based on a variety of 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 of Russian history, K. Marx only at its initial stage - Kievan Rus - recognizes the similarity with European. The empire of Rurikovich (he does not use the name of 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” . From the text it appears that K. Marx considered this period of Russian history not to be the stage of development of the Russian people, but one of the particular 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 almost all the Kyiv princes were enthroned by the power of the Varangian weapons (although he does not give specific facts). The influence of the Slavs on this process K. Marx completely rejects, recognizing the Novgorod Republic as the Slavic state only. When the supreme power passed from the Normans to the Slavs, the empire of Rurikovich naturally fell apart, 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, Karl 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, called not Genghis Khan, but Baty. One way or another, “the cradle of Muscovy was the bloody swamp of Mongolian slavery, and not the stern glory of the Norman era” .
The gap between Russia and Europe could not fill the activities of Peter I, which Marx called the desire to "civilize" Russia. According to Karl Marx, German lands “provided him with abundance of officials, teachers and sergeant fellets, who were to train the Russians, giving them that external civilization attack that would prepare them for the perception of the techniques 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 approves of the theory of Professor Duchinsky that “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 farther to the east, parts of Russia and its southeast 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 back beyond the Dnieper ”[6, 106]. Speaking about this theory, Marx takes in quotes the word "discoveries", which shows that he does not take it for immutable truth. But then he clearly enough states his opinion: “I would like Duchinsky to be right, and at least, this view should prevail among the Slavs” [6, 107].
Very correct poster in terms of the rules of heraldry. All people are looking from right to left.
Speaking of Russia, the founders of Marxism note its economic backwardness. In the work "On the social issue in Russia" Fr. Engels accurately and reasonably observes the main trends and problems in the development of the post-reform Russian economy: the concentration of land in the hands of the nobility; land tax paid by peasants; a huge mark-up on the land redeemed by the peasants; the flourishing of usury and financial fraud; the breakdown of the financial and tax system; corruption; destruction of the community against the background of intensified attempts by the state to preserve it; incompetence of workers, contributing to the exploitation of their labor; disorder in agriculture, the lack of land among the peasants and the labor of the landlords. Based on the above data, the thinker makes a disappointing, but fair conclusion: “there is no other such country in which, for all the primitive savagery of bourgeois society, capitalist parasitism would be so developed, just like in Russia, where the whole country, the whole mass of the people is crushed and entangled by its networks »[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, off-road, lack of a center, the seizure of which would mark the outcome of the war, and a stable, passive population; However, when it comes to attacking, all these advantages turn into disadvantages: the vast territory makes it difficult to move and supply the army, the passivity of the population turns out to be lack of initiative and inertia, the lack of a center causes unrest. Such arguments are certainly not without logic and are based on knowledge of the history of the wars that Russia has waged, but F. Engels makes significant factual errors in them. So, he believes that Russia occupies a territory with “an exceptionally homogeneous racial 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 irrelevant in this matter. In addition, F. Engels shows some limitations, saying that Russia is vulnerable only from Europe.
A 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. Thus, in presenting the history of the liberation of Russia from the Mongol-Tatar yoke, K. Marx does not mention in a word about the Kulikovo battle. According to him, “when the Tatar monster finally breathed its last, Ivan came to his deathbed, rather as a doctor who predicted death and used it to his advantage than as a warrior who delivered a death blow” . Russia's participation in the wars with Napoleon is regarded by the classics of Marxism as the means for implementing Russia's aggressive plans, in particular, for dividing Germany. It remains without attention to the fact that the actions of the Russian army (in particular, the suicidal transition of the army led by Suvorov across the Alps) saved Austria and Prussia from complete defeat and conquest and were carried out just in their interests. Engels describes his vision of the anti-Napoleonic wars as follows: “Only those wars can arrange for her (Russia), when Russia's allies must bear the main burden, subject their territory, turned into a theater of military operations, to devastation and expose the greatest mass of fighters, while how Russian troops play the role of reserves, which spare the majority of battles, but which in all major battles have the honor of deciding the final outcome of the case; so it was in the 1813 — 1815 war ”[7, 16-17]. Even the 1812 campaign plan for the strategic retreat of the Russian army was developed, according to him, by the Prussian general Ful, and MB. Barclay de Tolly was the only general who did not succumb to futile and stupid panic and prevented attempts to save Moscow. Here there is a frank disregard for historical facts, which looks strange given the fact that K. Marx and F. Engels wrote a series of articles on this war for the American encyclopedia, referring to the memoirs of K.F. Tolya, who fought on the side of Russia. The hostility towards Russia is so great that the attitude to its participation in the anti-Napoleonic wars is expressed in a very offensive way: “Russians still boast that they have decided the fall of Napoleon with their countless troops” [2, 300].
And here are four of them. Now also Mao got close ...
Being a low opinion of Russia's military power, Russian diplomacy K. Marx and F. Engels considered it the strongest side, and foreign policy successes - the most important achievement on the world stage. Russia's foreign policy strategy (Pre-Peter the Great Russia, K. Marx calls Muscovy) grew up “in a terrible and vile school of Mongolian slavery” , which dictated certain methods of diplomacy. The Moscow princes, the founders of the new state, Ivan Kalita and Ivan III, adopted the Mongol-Tatar tactics of bribing, pretending, using the interests of some groups against others. They rubbed confidence in the Tatar khans, set them against their opponents, used the confrontation between the Golden Horde and the Crimean Khanate and the Novgorod boyars with the merchants and the poor population, the ambitions of the Pope to strengthen the secular power over the Orthodox Church. The prince “had to turn all the tricks of the lowest slavery into a system and apply this system with the patient persistence of a slave. Open force itself could enter the system of intrigue, bribery and hidden usurpation only as intrigue. He could not strike without first giving poison. He had one goal, and there were many ways to achieve it. To invade, using fraudulently hostile force, to weaken this force by precisely this use and, in the end, to overthrow it by means of the means created by itself ”.
Next, the Russian tsars actively used the legacy of the Moscow princes. In his work “The Foreign Policy of Russian Tsarism,” F. Engels described in detail, with a mixture of hostility and admiration, the most subtle diplomatic game played by Russian diplomacy in the era of Catherine II and Alexander I (although not forgetting to emphasize the German origin of all great diplomats). Russia, he said, remarkably played on the contradictions between the major European powers - England, France and Austria. It could interfere with impunity in the internal affairs of all countries under the pretext of protecting order and traditions (if it played into the hands of conservatives) or enlightenment (if it was necessary to make friends with the liberals). It was Russia during the American war of independence that for the first time formulated the principle of armed neutrality, subsequently actively used by diplomats of all countries (at that time this position weakened England’s maritime superiority). She actively used nationalist and religious rhetoric to expand her influence in the Ottoman Empire: she invaded her territory under the pretext of protecting the Slavs and the Orthodox Church, provoked uprisings of conquered peoples, which, in Fr. Engels, lived is not bad at all. At the same time, Russia was not afraid of defeat, since Turkey was a deliberately weak rival. Through bribes and diplomatic intrigues, Russia has long maintained the fragmentation of Germany and kept Prussia dependent. Perhaps this is one of the reasons for the dislike of Karl Marx and F. Engels for Russia. It was Russia, according to F. Engels, who erased Poland from the map of the world, giving it a part of Austria and Prussia. With this she killed two birds with one stone: liquidated a troubled neighbor and for a long time subjugated Austria and Prussia. “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 blames the blame for the destruction of Poland entirely on Russia, forgetting to mention the interest of Prussia and Austria.
"Holy Trinity" - lost two!
Russia, according to thinkers, is constantly nurturing aggressive plans. The aim of the Moscow princes was the subordination of the Russian lands, the life of Peter I - strengthening on the Baltic coast (which is why, according to Marx, he transferred the capital to the newly conquered lands), Catherine II and her heirs seek to seize Constantinople in order to control Black and part of the Mediterranean. To this, thinkers add aggressive wars in the Caucasus. Along with the expansion of economic influence, they see this policy as another goal. To maintain the royal power and the power of the nobility of Russia, constant foreign policy successes are needed, which create the illusion of a strong state and distract people from internal problems (thereby freeing the authorities from the need to solve them). A similar trend is characteristic of all countries, but K. Marx and F. Engels show it precisely on the example of Russia. In the critical heat of the moment, the founders of Marxism consider the facts somewhat one-sidedly. Thus, they greatly exaggerate rumors about the prosperity of 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 not seriously threaten Russia, but they were still a constant source of unrest); They do not provide details of the life of the Caucasian peoples under Persian rule and ignore the fact that many of them, for example, Georgia, have asked Russia for help (perhaps they simply did not have this information).
Only one looks at the future shift. Two are completely uninteresting.
But 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 is derived 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. Ivan III, according to Karl Marx, understood that the indispensable condition for the existence of a single strong Muscovy was the destruction of Russian liberties, and threw forces to fight against the remnants of republican power on the outskirts: in Novgorod, Poland, the Cossack republic (it’s not quite clear what in mind K. Marx, speaking of her). Therefore, he “broke the chains into which the Mongols chained Muscovy, only to entangle the Russian republics with them” . Then Russia successfully benefited from the European revolutions: thanks to the French Revolution, it was able to subjugate Austria and Prussia and destroy Poland (Polish resistance distracted Russia from France and helped revolutionaries). The struggle against Napoleon, in which Russia played a decisive role, was also a struggle against revolutionary France; after victory, Russia gained the support of the restored monarchy. According to the same scheme, Russia acquired allies and expanded its sphere of influence after the 1848 revolutions. Having concluded the Sacred Union with Prussia and Austria, Russia became a stronghold of reaction in Europe.
Here's a funny trinity, isn't it? “We will drink to the fullest, our short eyelid, remove all the devilry from here and turn this liquid into pure water. Let there be water, drink gentlemen! ”
By suppressing revolutions in Europe, Russia is increasing its influence on 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 the logical outcome of the development of Europe, it becomes clear why they believed that Russia interfered with the intervention of the natural course of development of European countries and for the victory the working party must fight not for life, but for 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 the government and the people. In any country, including Russia, the government very rarely defends the people's interests. Mongol-Tatar yoke contributed to the strengthening of the Moscow princes, but dried up the soul of the people. Peter I, “by transferring the capital, broke the natural ties that linked the system of seizures of the former Muscovite kings to the natural abilities and aspirations of the great Russian race. Placing his capital on the seashore, he threw openly to the anti-sea instincts of this race and reduced it to the position of simply a mass of his political mechanism ”. Diplomatic games of the 18th and 19th centuries, which raised Russia to unprecedented power, were occupied by foreigners in the Russian service: Pozzo di Borgo, Liven, C.V. Nesselrode, A.Kh. Benkendorf, Medem, Meyendorf, etc. under the direction of the German Catherine II of her heirs. The Russian people, according to the founders of Marxism, are hardy, brave, steadfast, but passive, absorbed by 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 fully trust the legends that are spread by the authorities. “In the eyes of the vulgar-patriotic public, the glory of victories, one after another conquest, the power and external brilliance of tsarism, outweigh all his sins, all despotism, all injustice 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 people's outlook changed. The people began to be critical of the government, the intelligentsia contributed to the spread of revolutionary thoughts, industrial development was becoming increasingly important for foreign policy successes. 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. The 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 passed in Europe: due to the fact that most of the land in Russia is communally owned, the Russian revolution will be mainly peasant, and the community will become a cell new society. The Russian revolution will be a signal for revolutions in other European countries.
Also, the trinity is very famous at one time: “Do you have to go there, Comandante, go there?” “Go there, that's it!”
The socialist revolution will not only transform Russia, but will also substantially change the balance of power in Europe. F. Engels in 1890 indicates 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, he says, exists exclusively under the influence of the “Russian threat” in the Balkans and the Mediterranean. In case of liquidation of the tsarist regime in Russia, this threat will disappear, since Russia will switch to internal problems, aggressive Germany, left alone, will not dare to start a war. European countries will build new relationships based on partnership and progress. Such reasoning cannot be unconditionally accepted on faith. Friedrich Engels blames Russia for all the responsibility for the upcoming world war and ignores the desire of European countries to redistribute colonies outside Europe, because of which war would still become inevitable.
Here they are - the book mountains of the works of Marx and Engels. It is not surprising that the country did not have enough paper on the “Library of Adventures”.
Thus, in the views of Karl Marx and F. Engels can be traced duality in relation to Russia. On the one hand, they emphasize its dissimilarity with Europe and the 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 further course of Russian history forced the founders of Marxism to reconsider their attitude towards Russia and recognize its possible role in historical progress.
1. Berdyaev N.A. The origins and meaning of Russian communism // http://lib.ru/HRISTIAN/BERDQEW/duhi.txt
2. Engels F. Democratic Pan-Slavism // K. Marx and F. Engels. Writings 2 Edition. - M., State Publishing House of Political Literature. - 1962. - T. 6.
3. Marx K. On the social issue in Russia // K. Marx and F. Engels. Writings 2 Edition. - M., State Publishing House of Political Literature. - 1962. - T. 18.
4. Kotov V.N. K. Marx and F. Engels on Russia and the Russian people. -
Moscow, "Knowledge". - 1953 G. // http://www.biografia.ru/arhiv/orossii02.html
5. Marx K. Exposing the Diplomatic History of the XVIII Century // http://www.gumer.info/bibliotek_Buks/History/diplomat_history/index.php
6. K. Marx - Fr. Engels in Manchester // K. Marx and F. Engels. Writings 2 Edition. - M., State Publishing House of Political Literature. - 1962. - t.31.
7. Engels Fr. Foreign policy of the Russian Tsarism // K. Marx and F. Engels. Writings 2 Edition. - M., State Publishing House of Political Literature. - 1962. - T. 22.