The Revolutions of 1848

T HE historian might be considered fortunate among Soviet scholars because he has at hand the accepted-and, his chief critics, the infallible-key history: Marxism. In dealing with the revolutions of 1848, he might be considered doubly fortunate since he has, as guides his treatment of that period, not only the general historical method of Marx, but also the master's extensive analysis of the events of 1848. However, in trying take advantage of this double blessing in recent years, he seems have found himself embarrassingly involved in difficulties growing out of the requirement that he profess Marxism and, at the same time, follow Stalinism. Up the time that the domestic and foreign policies of the U.S.S.R. began show signs of divergence from the views of Marx, the historian could safely guide himself by the chief Marxian pointers of 1848: (i) that the revolutions marked an important step in the development of capitalistic society, being an outgrowth of efforts on the part of the bourgeoisie of western and central Europe enhance their political power in order consolidate their economic position; (2) that they marked the introduction of the proletariat as a political factor. On the basis of those two pointers, Marx's Soviet disciples spelled out many lessons for future political action, particularly in revolutionary situations.1 Marx, along with Engels, argued that the events of 1848 represented the forces of history working in pre-determined directions and that the proper tactic of the participants was aid, not hinder, those forces. By his reasoning, unification of the German states was a requisite of history, and those who hindered that unification were counter-revolutionaries. With respect the people of the Hapsburg Empire, he found only the Germans, Poles, and Magyars be worthy of continued existence as ethnic groups, while the lot of the Czechs and Southern Slavs was simply to perish in the

Political science · Eastern European Communism and Reforms · Soviet and Russian History