When prophecy succeeds

 

I rubbed my eyes more than once when reading Frederick Engels´ "Foreign Policy of Russian Tsardom", first published in 1890. Although relatively short, the article covers a lot of topics worth pondering. Often, it comes across as prophetic, but in a weird and uncanny way. Engels´ predictions are often "wrong", but there is nevertheless an eerie family likeness between them and what actually took place. 

The article puts to rest the old canard that Marx and Engels "never" predicted the Russian revolution. At least in 1890, Engels does predict a democratic revolution in Russia ahead of a socialist revolution in the rest of Europe, indeed he seems to regard the overthrow of Czarism in favor of a National Assembly backed by the Russian peasantry as a *precondition* for victory in the class struggle in Germany, France or Britain. Unless Czarist absolutism is removed, Imperial Russia might simply invade Central or Western Europe and smash any proletarian revolution there - a role Czarism played historically against democratic revolutions (for instance, against Hungary in 1849). 

That Engels didn´t predict a *socialist* revolution in Russia is irrelevant, since he couldn´t entirely predict if and when Russia would be industrialized enough to have a strong proletariat. (Marx and Engels believed that a socialist revolution was only possible under such conditions. They were wrong if the entire 20th century is taken into consideration - but note that they were *not* wrong in the Russian case! The Bolsheviks took power in Russia in 1917 by organizing the working class. That they sold it down the river later is another matter.) 

Engels further predicts a devastating European war unless Czardom is overthrown, a war between a Russo-French alliance and a German-Austrian ditto. He is unsure which side Britain will take, but predicts that whatever side that may be, it will emerge victorious. This, of course, is almost precisely what happened in 1914-18 in the form of World War I, although it could be argued that it was the United States rather than Britain that saved the day. Russian Czardom was overthrown during the war, as a consequence of its hardships, rather than before, creating further complexities. The revolutionary wave did spread to the rest of Europe, most notably Germany, immidiately after the war ended. Engels believed that Austria-Hungary would be dissolved as a hopeless anachronism if Czarism fell, since then no "buffer" against Russia would be necessary. Austria-Hungary was indeed dissolved, but under somewhat different circumstances (German defeat in World War I). 

The biggest "failure" of Engels´ predictions is that he didn´t (and probably couldn´t) foresee the "betrayal of 1914", when the socialist parties in many European nations supported the war efforts of their respective governments. Engels viewed a European bourgeois crusade to smash a Russian revolutionary government as down-right impossible. The socialist workers simply wouldn´t allow it. But "1914" made things more complicated, as of course did October 1917 and the subsequent split in the workers´ movement between reformist Social Democrats and Communists. We got a gritty and sometimes violent competition between the revolution and the "counter-revolution", rather than the decisive victory for the former hoped for by Engels. 

Even so, he was remarkably close in his forecasts, if you ask me. 

The rest of the text, which analyzes Russian diplomatic history and geopolitics, is also intriguing in many ways. Engels points out that control of the Balkans, Germany and the Baltic Sea is essential for Russia to become a great power. And, of course, Constantinople. India is also important. No surprise there - Engels just had to read the morning papers - but note the irony that the Soviet Communist regime would later follow *exactly the same gameplan* (minus Constantinople) as the erstwhile Czarist empire! Even more intriguing is that even the propaganda lies of Czarist Russia and the Soviet Union had a weird family likeness, the Czars claiming to stand for the Enlightenment, national self-determination for the oppressed and protection of Slav and/or Christian peoples. 

It´s also interesting that Engels points out (or accuses?) the Russian diplomatic corps, and even Czarism itself, for being "de-nationalized" and cosmopolitan, drawing its support from foreign adventurers and "enlightened" dreamers. The Czarist diplomats are like a fanatical Jesuit order, with perfect discipline and only one goal: Russian world power. Doesn´t this also sound familiar somehow? A centralized "Jesuit" society with international connections, regrouping both unscrupulous careerists and starry-eyed idealists, with no national loyalties of the traditional kind, fanatically beholden to the Great Leader, why, that would be the Communist International! 

Engels believes that the Janus-faced Protean quality of Russian Czarist propaganda is one of the reasons for Czardom´s international success. The Russian PR agents sound "enlightened" and "liberal" when talking to liberal philistines, "conservative" and "legitimist" when talking to conservatives, skillfully playing both ends against the middle. Obviously, Russia also takes advantage of wars and conflicts between the other European powers, which seem incapable of ever uniting against the external enemy. Engels opposed the German annexation of Alsace-Lorraine (Elsass-Lothringen), since it made France a Russian ally. And while Engels of course supports revolutions against the established order, he admits that at least in the short run, even that might favor Russian interests. Thus, the French revolution or the 1848 uprisings made the conservative European rulers jump right into the Russian lap even more effectively than any psy-op. 

Engels is full of scorn and hostility towards the "enlightened despots" of 18th century Europe. Prussia under Frederick the Great, Austria under Joseph II...Russian patsies all. Nor does he have any sympathy for the Greek freedom struggle against the Ottoman Empire, since it was brokered by Russia and its silly allies in the "Holy Alliance" (and the usual liberal do-gooders). This despite the fact that the Greeks were a "mercantile" people and hence presumably represented historically progressive capitalism against Ottoman absolutism. Indeed, Engels sounds more friendly towards the Egyptian ruler (and nominal Ottoman governor) Mohammad Ali, who intervened against the Greeks. 

The Russian "liberation" of Romania and Bulgaria doesn´t fit well with Engels either - here, he seems more sympathetic towards the Austrians who conquered the northwestern part of the Balkans. This, of course, isn´t what we expect one of the founders of Marxism to say, and yet, there it is. (He said even more controversial things in other articles.) Marxism was not just about proletarian or even democratic revolutions. Geopolitics with an obvious Central European slant were also part of the picture.

As already noted, Engels´ perspective was (mostly) an optimistic one. Defeated by the other European powers during the Crimean War, Russia had been forced to modernize, abolish serfdom, create a bourgeoisie, and hence also a proletariat. This would eventually turn Russia into a regular European nation, with the normal internal class antagonisms, which would probably culminate in a peasant-dominated rebellion against Czarist autocracy. The contradiction between Czarism and the rest of Europe would be removed, making it possible for that other contradiction, between bourgeoisie and proletariat, to come to the fore in the Western and Central European nations. A democratic revolution in Russia heralds the victory of the socialist revolution in Europe. And if not, millions will be killed in the most devastating war the world has ever seen...

What Engels didn´t or couldn´t see in his crystal ball were the two "historic betrayals" against the working class: that of European Social Democracy in 1914, and that of the Russian revolutionaries themselves (insert your favored year here). The latter betrayal was particularly ironic, since it eventually turned the Soviet Union into a "Red" version of the very same Czarism Engels had considered to be the main bulwark of reaction in Europe, perhaps the world. At least he would have considered it...familiar. 

I end with two extensive quotes from Frederick Engels´ 1890 article. 

>>>And the “enlightened” 18th Century produced such people in numbers: people who in the service of “Humanity” traversed all Europe, visited the Courts of all enlightened Princes — and what Prince then but wished to be “enlightened “, — who settled down wherever they found a favourable spot, a semi-aristocratic, semi-middleclass, denationalized International of “Enlightenment.” 

This International fell on its knees before the Semiramis of the North, one equally denationalized, Sophia Augusta of Anhalt, called Jekaterina II. of Russia, and it was from the ranks of this International that this same Catherine drew the elements for her Jesuit order of Russian diplomacy. Let us now see how this order of Jesuits works, how it uses the ever-changing aims of the rival Powers as a means for obtaining its one aim — never changing, never lost sight of — the World-Supremacy of Russia.>>> 

>>>Nothing could have been more useful to Catherine than these "enlightened” princely neighbours of hers. “Progress” and “enlightenment” were the parrot-cry of Russian Tsardom in Europe during the eighteenth century, just as the deliverance of enslaved nations is in the nineteenth. No spoliation, no violence, no oppression on the part of Tsardom, but has been perpetrated under pretext of “progress,” “enlightenment,” “Liberalism,” “the deliverance of the oppressed.” 

And the childish Liberals of Western Europe — down to Mr. Gladstone — believe it to this day, while the equally stupid Conservatives believe as firmly in the bunkum about the defence of legitimacy, the upholding of order, religion, the balance of power, and the sanctity of treaties — all of which are at one and the same time in the mouth of official Russia. Russian diplomacy has succeeded in soft-soaping the two great Bourgeois parties of Europe. To be Legitimist and Revolutionist, Conservative and Liberal, orthodox and “advanced,” all in one breath, is permitted to Russia, and to Russia alone. Imagine the contempt with which such a Russian diplomatist looks down upon the “cultured” Occident.>>>