Marx and Russia:
The Changing Meaning of a Semi-Asiatic Empire,
1852-1883

*1850s:Marx began to question his uni-linear view of societies which he had absorbed under influence of general European presumptions about the "natural" sequence of progressive human development = savage to patriarchal to barbaric and finally to civilized (Hegel, Comte and Fourier)

Marx defined for first time the prime characteristics of something different, "Oriental Society" =
(1) Vast public works (EG=Kublai's Grand Canal)
(2) Dispersed villages (absence of "lateral" networks, presence only of top-down horizontal network)
(3) Disintegration or pulverization of population (social networks display same lateral and horizontal feature as villages above)

This challenged a central tenet of Marx's thought, as per 1848 Manifesto =
Politics are a subset of economics. Political power expresses the interests of "ruling economic classes"
"The state is but a committee for the management of the affairs of the bourgeoisie"
In Oriental society, the state was itself the "owning class"

*1852+:Specifically, Russian issue arose in midst of European crisis = Crimean War
Marx saw Russia as "semi-Asiatic" menace to "Europe" and "civilization" [Articles in Free Press (later gathered as Secret Diplomatic History of the 18th Century) (TXT)] =
(1) Mongols forced "Tatarization" of European-style feudal Kievan Rus' [ID]
(2) Tsars built on Mongol "Tatarization"  [SAC LOOP on "Golden Horde" and Moscow]
(3) Peter the Great "generalized it" [ID]
(4) And it characterized Russian Empire of mid-19th century [EG]

*1853je: Marx wrote = "A simple substitution of names and dates will prove ... that between the policy of Ivan III  [ID] and that of modern Russia there exists not similarity but sameness" [British Rule in India (TXT)]

*1859:Zur Kritik .... [Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (TXT)]
The three European historical modes of production were progressive, one led positively to the next and higher stage [here described in Zur Kritik] =
(1) Classical mode of production (Patricians vs. slaves)
(2) Feudal mode of production (Aristocrats vs. serfs/peasants -- "commoners")
(3) Modern bourgeois mode of production (Capitalists vs. proletariat)

"Asiatic Mode of Production" was unchangeable, static. Isolated self-sufficient villages, social pulverization and unchecked autocratic authority = keys
Russia had no massive public works like China's Grand Canal, but it had the other key features.

*1870s:Russian émigré youths asked Marx to represent them on the London General Council of the International Working Men's Association [First International (ID)]
As Das Kapital began to appear, Marx had to rethink Russia. Maybe there was some progressive possibilities there. Maybe he had a lot yet to learn about the wider world's "modes of production"
\\
*--Late Marx and the Russian Road

*1875:Friedrich Engels engaged émigré revolutionist Petr Tkachev in a polemic over the particularity or exceptional qualities of Russia

*1877:Marx wrote letter to the Russian journal Otechestvennye zapiski [Notes of the Fatherland] warning that his sociopolitical concepts applied only to West-Europe. Warned against turning his views into a marche générale

*1881:Marx wrote letter to Vera Zasulich [LOOP ID]. The first draft was a tortured document..Russia is semi-Asiatic despotism in which "isolated village communities always constitute the basis of centralized despotism". But still Russia is the most revolutionary of all European nations. The big revolution might start there as "anti-autocratic" and spill over to arouse proletariat of Germany and elsewhere to initiate the "anti-bourgeois" worker's revolution. Then W.Europe can show Russia how to convert their revolution into a proletarian revolution [TXT]

SOURCES =

*1957:Yale.UP| Wittfogel,Karl August| Oriental Despotism. See esp. ch9, but consider also ch10 [E-TXT]
*1960jy:WoP#12,4:489-97| Wittfogel,Karl August| "The Marxist View of Russian Society and Revolution"

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|