Marx and
Soviet Reality. Daniel Norman (1955)
VIII: Marx
and Engels and the Russian Revolution
Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/norman/marx-reality/ch08.htm
The Russians are very proud of the fact that Marx and
Engels showed great interest in their country. Indeed, Russia was one of their
main subjects, and their statements concerning past, contemporary and future
Russia would fill volumes.
It is perhaps exaggerated to go as far as do Soviet
historians, such as Professor Kozhevnikov (in Sovetskoye Gosudarstvo I Pravo,
no 12, 1950), and say: ‘It is impossible to study the history of our country
without thorough research into Marx and Engels’ statements on Russia.’ If such
research and study had been possible since 1934, Russian history would
certainly have been written otherwise, and the professor’s next sentence would have
been superfluous. ‘Unfortunately’, he continues, ‘there is still no complete
and systematic collection of Marx and Engels’ statements about Russia.’
Indeed, we
have been offered a curiously incomplete Marx on Britain, a Marx on China, on
India, etc, but it is almost a certainty that the Soviet regime will not give
satisfaction to the distinguished professor, as we shall see further in our
chapter on the fate of Marx and Engels’ works in Russia.
But, above all, the Russians are proud that the
founders of ‘scientific Socialism’ both ‘expected’ and ‘foretold’ the Russian
Revolution. Quotations such as ‘no doubt Russia stands on the verge of a
revolution’, or ‘all the conditions for a revolution are present’, and ‘this
revolution is certainly coming’ (all three are taken from one single paragraph
of the Postscript to Internationales aus dem Volkstaat) are always cropping up
in their writings and letters of a certain period. It is just this kind of
non-committal sentence that the Russians like to quote. But, as always with
them, this is only part of the truth, and they would be very embarrassed if
forced to give the whole, for the revolution Marx and Engels foretold had
nothing in common, as we shall see, with the one the Bolsheviks pretend to have
achieved.
Marx and Engels’ prophecies in this domain are more
important than would appear at first sight, as they help to place more exactly
not only the Russian Revolution, but also the Bolsheviks and Soviet reality in
relation to Marx and Engels.
During their lifetime Marx and Engels had much to do
with Russians, both the exiles and those living in their own country. In
general, they got on very badly with the refugees (their quarrels with Herzen
and Bakunin are famous) and established for themselves a reputation of rabid
Russophobia; on the other hand, they showed infinitely more patience and
clemency towards those who fought Tsarist despotism at home, endeavouring to
help them to understand and solve the problems that faced them (Marx and
Engels’ long correspondence with Danielson is the best example) or with the
representatives of the nascent group of Marxists – Vera Zasulich, Plekhanov,
etc, and on these relations the Soviets try to establish the reputation of
their Russophilia.
They equally loathed the messianic character of
Pan-Slavism, in which they saw the instrument of expansion of Russian
despotism. No less virulent attacks were reserved also for the other
messianism, the Socialist one of Herzen, Mikhailovsky, Tkachov and the many
other Russian Socialists who shared ‘the childish conception’ that the Russians
were ‘the chosen people of Socialism’, and believed that the ‘rotten and
degenerate’ West could be rejuvenated by the Russians who, as Tkachov put it,
were ‘by instinct and tradition Communists’. But while they used the big whip
against the exiled standard-bearers of this theory, they refused to judge the men
and women who, although only a few hundred, by their sacrifices and heroic
deeds, brought the Tsarist absolutism to contemplate the possibility and the
conditions of a capitulation. They added: ‘We do not blame them for having
considered their Russian people to be the chosen people of the Socialist
revolution. But this is not a reason for us to share their illusions. The time
of chosen peoples is forever past.’ (Postscript to Internationales aus dem
Volkstaat)
The foundation on which the Russian revolutionaries of
the second half of the nineteenth century laid their hopes of avoiding
capitalism in Russia and passing directly to Socialism was the continued
existence of different primitive collective forms of ownership of the land, and
other means of production, such as the mir and the artel. [4] Again and again
the Russian Socialists sought advice from Marx, whose Russian translation
ofCapital was much thought of in their ranks; its chapters on capitalist
accumulation, however, shattered their confidence in the possibility of a
direct passage to Socialism.
Marx, as we have seen at the end of the previous
chapter, and Engels later, tried in vain to explain to them that this could be
possible if (i) these primitive Communist forms survived up to the day of the revolution,
which they doubted more and more as time went on, and if (ii) the Socialist
revolution had succeeded in the West before or at least at the same time as in
Russia. But at no moment did they envisage the possibility of a successful
Socialist revolution in backward Russia showing the way to the civilised world.
It is in Engels’ polemic (written in 1874 at Marx’s
express request) against the Russian Blanquist, Tkachov, that the most
illuminating statements on this question are to be found.
Commenting on Tkachov’s affirmation that the future
Russian revolution would be ‘a social revolution...’, Engels wrote:
Every real
revolution, to the extent to which it brings about the rule of a new class and
permits it to reorganise the social structure according to its own needs, is a
social revolution. But what he [Tkachov] wants to say is that it will be a
Socialist revolution, which will introduce into Russia the type of society
aimed at by West European Socialism even before we have achieved it in the West
– and all this, in a social situation where both the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie exist only in sporadic form and have not passed beyond the inferior
stage of development.
One cannot help wondering whose pupils the Bolsheviks
are, Marx and Engels’ or Tkachov’s?
‘And this’, continues Engels ironically, ‘should be
possible, because the Russians are, so to speak, the chosen people of Socialism
and have the artel and collective ownership of land.’ In fact, ‘the
predominance of the artel form of organisation in Russia proves only the
existence of a strong drive for association among the Russian people but does
not prove at all that this drive makes possible a direct jump from the artel to
the Socialist society...’ (Social Problems in Russia, reprinted in Internationales
aus dem Volkstaat).
The
revolution sought by modern Socialism [explains Engels] is, briefly, the
victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisieand the reorganisation of
society by the abolition of all class distinctions.
Only when
the social forces of production have reached a very high degree of development
does it become possible to increase production to such an extent that the
abolition of classes represents a real and durable progress without causing
stagnation, or even a regression in the mode of social production. This has
only been reached by the productive forces when in the hands of the
bourgeoisie. Consequently, the existence of the bourgeoisie is from this point
of view also as necessary a condition for the Socialist revolution as the proletariat.
A person who maintains that this revolution could be carried out more easily in
his country because it neither has proletariat nor bourgeoisie, proves by his
statement that he has understood nothing of Socialism.
This is, however, what contemporary ‘Communists’
maintain.
Twenty years later, when he was still arguing with his
Russian correspondents, and especially with his friend Danielson, about the
possibility of shortening the ‘process of development towards a Socialist
society’, he reprinted the Social Problems in Russia, and wrote the Postscript
in which he tackled the problem anew and most emphatically declared:
... it is
not only possible but certain that, after the victory of the proletariat and
the transfer of the means of production to common ownership amongst Western
European peoples, the countries which have just entered the stage of capitalist
production and have still preserved, wholly or in part, their institutions of
gentile society, will derive from these remnants... a powerful means of
considerably shortening their process of development towards a Socialist
society.
However, this would happen:
... only
when the capitalist economy has been overcome in its homeland and the countries
where it is flourishing... only then can this shortening process of development
commence. But then it will be tackled with a certainty of success. And this
goes for all countries in a pre-capitalistic stage of development, not only for
Russia... [where, Engels admits] it will be relatively easier, because a part
of the indigenous population has already acquired the intellectual achievements
of capitalistic development and it will thus be possible here, in a
revolutionary period, to accomplish the social transformation almost
simultaneously with the West.
Engels concludes his Postscript in the following
terms: However, this much is certain: the first condition for
a survival of what remains from the communal village is the overthrow of
Tsarist despotism, the revolution in Russia. This revolution will not only
uproot the great mass of the nation, the peasants, out of the isolation of
their villages, from the mir which forms their world, to bring them on to the
great stage where they will learn to know the world abroad and with it themselves,
their own condition and the means to get out of their present destitution; at
the same time it will give a new impetus to the working-class movement of the
West, and provide it with better conditions for the struggle. Thus it will
hasten the victory of modern industrial proletariat, without which contemporary
Russia cannot achieve a socialist transformation neither proceeding from the
village community nor from capitalism.
In a letter to Plekhanov, written shortly before his
death, Engels comments on the effect his Russian studies reprinted in
Internationales aus dem Volkstaat and the Postscript ‘written partly with
Danielson in mind’ had on his friend (that is, Danielson), and says: ‘It is
impossible to discuss with this generation of Russians to which he belongs, and
who still believe in the spontaneous-Communist mission which distinguishes
Russia, the real Holy Russia, from the other, profane peoples.’ (26 February
1895) And he adds:
Moreover,
in a country like yours where the great modern industry is grafted on to the
primitive peasant commune, and where all the phases of intermediary
civilisation are represented at the same time, which besides is more or less
surrounded by an intellectual Wall of China erected by despotism; it is not
astonishing that the most peculiar and extravagant combinations of ideas come
into being.
Had Engels lived only twenty-five years more, he would
have seen how right he was, and how little has changed in Russia in this
respect, as well as how the heirs of the Herzens and Mikhailovskys and other
Tkachovs have used his and Marx’s names to cover their activities, to split the
working-class movement and discredit their teachings.
For Lenin’s and Stalin’s conception of a Socialist
revolution and proletarian dictatorship by proxy (that is, by Lenin, Trotsky,
Stalin, representing a small militarily and bureaucratically disciplined
minority of professional revolutionaries, called the Party, representing in its
turn the proletariat, itself only a small minority of the Russian people), is
certainly borrowed rather from Tkachov than from Marx and Engels.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.