"Secret Diplomatic History of the Eighteenth Century" is a work by Karl Marx, originally published in 1856-57 in a Urquhartist magazine in Britain. David Urquhart was a somewhat unusual on-off tactical collaborator with Marx, being a reactionary pro-aristocrat. Their common interest was to make Britain as anti-Russian as possible. Marx´ articles were republished in 1899 by his daughter Eleanor Aveling.
I´ve previously commented rather extensively on the anti-Russian and anti-Slavophile writings of Marx and Engels (a somewhat contentious topic in certain circles), so the concrete contents of "Secret Diplomatic History" didn´t surprise me. However, I nevertheless found the pamphlet relatively uninteresting. Most of it consists of excerpts from 18th century pamphlets and letters dealing with Anglo-Russian relations. The point is to prove that the cooperation between Czarist Russia and the United Kingdom goes all the way back to the time of Peter the Great. There are also some strongly negative sections on Russian history. The whole thing gives a patchwork impression, and it seems it really was a short draft for a longer work Marx never managed to write. (Engels would write a short book in 1890 called "Foreign Policy of Russian Tsardom", which concentrates on the late 18th century and 19th century.)
Marx and Engels saw Czarist Russia as the main threat to democratic and socialist revolutions in Europe, and therefore developed strongly anti-Russian geopolitics. For the same reason, they opposed pan-Slavism as a reactionary tool of Czarism. In "Secret Diplomatic History", Marx - as already noted - traces the roots of the problem to Czar Peter (sole ruler of Russia 1696-1725) who contrary to all previous Russian policy and general Slav mentality built a new imperial capital at the Baltic coast. The existence of Saint Petersburg virtually necessitated the conquests of territories surrounding the Baltic Sea, and hence permanent Russian interventionism in European affairs. Says Marx: "Petersburg was not like Muscovy, the centre of a race, but the seat of a government; not the slow work of a people, but the instantaneous creation of a man; not the medium from which the peculiarities of an inland people radiate, but the maritime extremity where they are lost; not the traditionary nucleus of a national development, but the deliberately chosen abode of a cosmopolitan intrigue." It´s interesting to note that while Marx isn´t particularly impressed by Russians or Slavs in general (except perhaps the republic of Novgorod), he nevertheless sees the policies of Peter the Great as in some sense fundamentally at odds with the Russian national character and the organic development of a Russian nation.
Marx and Engels were in many ways "politically incorrect" by 21st century leftoid standards (and even by 20th century Marxist standards), which makes some of their writings quite entertaining to read. The anti-woke angle in this particular text concerns the Great Northern War between Czar Peter´s Russia and the Swedish Empire. It´s clear from context that Marx retrospectively supports Sweden, since menacing Petersburg was founded on land conquered from the Swedes during the war. Marx also sees the partitioning of the Swedish Empire as a precedent for the later partitioning of Poland, both of which strengthened Russia and Russian Czardom. The old pamphlets extensively quoted in "Secret Diplomatic History" accuse Britain of secretely and treacherously aiding and abetting Russia during the Great Northern War, despite a friendship treaty between William III´s government and Sweden from 1700. In other words, Karl Marx supports Karl XII (or Charles XII), the famous Swedish warrior-king (ruled 1697-1718). To a Swedish leftoid, this must be difficult to digest, the Swedish Empire in general and Karl XII in particular being modern symbols of right-wing nationalism or even fascism, good Swedish progressives of course opposing all such things. And yet, here is grandpapa Marx himself suggesting that Karl was the good guy all along!
I think I can live with such Marxism.
No comments:
Post a Comment