How do Marx and Engels view all ethnic groups in the wave of European revolution

Marx and Engels are not only the founders of the scientific theory of * * * productism, but also the planners of the development strategy of the European workers' movement in the second half of the19th century and the directors of the struggle practice. This kind of planning for the basic structural characteristics of society, as well as artificial intervention and guidance for social consciousness and political behavior, are the main symbols of European modernity. As theorists and active practitioners of social revolution, Marx and Engels' knowledge production and political practice are deeply branded with the times and are an indispensable part of the development of modern western civilization. At that time, there were many organizations with revolutionary tendencies and directly engaged in revolutionary activities in European countries, such as the Rightist Alliance (1847 renamed the Producers' Alliance), the Producers' Communication Committee, the German Workers' Association, the Democrats' Association and the German Producers' Club. The New Rheinische Zeitung written by Marx claimed to be the organ of the Democrats. Many articles about the European nationalist movement were published in the New Rheinische Zeitung. 1850, they published the New Rheinische Review. It is through these progressive publications and their links with revolutionary organizations that Marx and Engels indirectly guided the European workers' movement in the second half of the19th century. At that time, the nationalities in the world were roughly divided into two categories: 1848 to 1850. Social revolutions, popular uprisings and wars broke out one after another in various parts of Europe, and governments, ethnic groups and political groups of various countries expressed their views and threw themselves into the struggle under the revolutionary situation. In the works of this period, Marx and Engels divided the world's "nations" (including tribes) into two categories politically: one is an "advanced nation" with vitality and creativity, which can promote social and historical progress and conform to the general trend of human social development; The other is a closed, conservative, lifeless "backward nation" who kicked back to history alive. /kloc-the political struggle in Europe in the 0/9th century was mainly between countries and nations, but the class struggle within nations and the weak and antagonistic proletariat could not dominate the political position and development direction of countries and nations. In this realistic situation, Marx and Engels can only analyze and discuss the situation in Europe with the role of "nation" in the international political struggle as the main line. This also shows that there are still some problems in the applicability of Marx and Engels' conclusions based on their observation of the class structure of British society to the whole European society, so they have to analyze the social and political movements in ethnic groups. As Connor said, in the actual social movement at that time, "some nationalities-not some classes-were engaged in class wars". Marx and Engels believed that the leader of the nationalist movement of "revolutionary nation" must have a certain proletarian nature or be deeply influenced by proletarian revolutionary thought. In the tide of the European Revolution, they stood in the camp representing the historical development direction (which is conducive to the development of the international workers' movement) and pushed the revolutionary situation forward. The leaders of nationalist movements of "reactionary nations" often stand in the camp of the bourgeoisie and even feudal lords and "turn the clock back" and become accomplices of feudal ruling groups and capitalists. In this way, the revolutionary and reactionary nature of every "nationalist movement" is linked to and determined by the class nature of its leading group. /kloc-the 0/9th century is also an era when western European capitalist countries expand and invade the world. When western countries with advanced production relations and productivity levels colonized eastern Europe and other continents, Marx and Engels regarded these aggression activities as the impact of "advanced nations" on "backward nations". Although their actions and social consequences are cruel and immoral, these aggressive activities objectively promoted historical progress and played the role of "historical tools". At the same time, Marx and Engels also pointed out that when the traditional conservative "backward nation" resisted the aggression, oppression and exploitation of the "advanced nation", the "advanced nation" fully exposed its robber nature by any means in the process of aggression and colonization, and the "backward nation" may have the moral upper hand in the anti-aggression struggle. Marx and Engels pointed out that although the tragic situation of these backward ethnic groups is indeed sympathetic, from the great process of human historical development, this is "the price that mankind must pay." Taking the general direction of social progress as the criterion, judging the "progress" and "reaction" of different nationalities from the perspective of western enlightenment rationality rather than natural emotion is the basic idea that Marx and Engels always adhered to when discussing the national and nationalist movements in Europe and other countries in the world. This idea has a strong evolutionary color and occupied the mainstream position in the scientific ideological circles at that time. In the article "The Hungarian Struggle", Engels specifically analyzed the reasons for the formation of the two camps: "1848 first caused a terrible chaos in Austria ... but in this chaotic situation, we quickly got a clue. Strugglers are divided into two camps: Germans, Poles and magyars stand on the revolutionary side, while other nationalities, that is, all Slavs except Poles, Romanians and Saxons in Transylvania stand on the counter-revolutionary side. " Why is there such a national division? What caused this? "This division is in line with all the historical situations of these ethnic groups in the past. This is the beginning to solve the life and death problems of all these ethnic groups. Up to now, the whole history of Austria has proved this point, and it has also been confirmed in 1848. Of all the ethnic groups in Austria, only three are representatives of progress. They have a positive influence on history and still maintain their vitality. They are Germans, Poles and magyars. Therefore, they are revolutionary now. All other nations, big or small, will perish in the storm of world revolution in the near future. Therefore, they are counter-revolutionary now. " In addition to how to "stand in line" in the European revolutionary struggle that was in full swing at that time, Engels put forward three criteria when evaluating whether a nation is a "representative of progress": first, "keep vitality", especially in social system and scientific and technological economy; The second is "the ability to assimilate different races"; The third is "positively influencing history". Of course, these three are closely related. Groups with strong initiative and vitality in cultural innovation, scientific and technological exploration, social organization and economic development actively influence and lead the development of surrounding groups and become "representatives of progress" when interacting with other surrounding groups. Their own development and their "leading role" in the social, economic and cultural development of the region will naturally have a positive impact on the historical process of the whole region. Engels believed that magyars had strong vitality and the ability to assimilate foreigners, and even assimilated the Germans who entered Hungary: "Although the Germans in Hungary still maintained Germanic language, they became authentic magyars in spirit, character and customs. Only the newly moved peasant immigrants, except the Jews and Saxons in Transylvania, insist on retaining their unnecessary national identity in foreign countries. " In contrast, those groups who resist "assimilation" and strive to "preserve their unnecessary national characteristics" in this process of progress are regarded by Engels as "reactionary nationalities" in the process of social progress. From the standpoint of contemporary "cultural relativity", these views are hard to be accepted by people. In these discourses, Engels actually admitted that there are differences in the nature of "progress" and "reaction" between the traditional cultures of various ethnic groups, although "every ethnic group has been superior to other ethnic groups in some aspects throughout the ages". The so-called "unnecessary national characteristics" may actually refer to those factors that hinder the "progress" of the nation. So, what exactly is "necessary national identity"? What is "unnecessary national identity"? Or are all national characteristics "redundant"? Who should evaluate it? Undoubtedly, judging from the cultural diversity and cultural gene pool of human society, we can't say that one civilization is "superior" to another, or that some "national characteristics" of a certain nation are "necessary" and some "national characteristics" of another nation are "unnecessary", because all civilizations are in different living environments and on different tracks of cultural development, so they are not comparable. However, if we look at the complexity of cultural development, the innovation speed of cultural development and the advantages and disadvantages of competition when different cultures meet, we have to admit that there is a difference between complex civilization and simple civilization (some even have no words), and there is also a difference between actively innovative civilization and conservative and stagnant civilization. In the mutual competition, some civilizations are in a strong position and assimilate the surrounding groups, while others are in a weak position and assimilated by the strong. Such group differences exist objectively. The phenomenon of "Matthew effect" in economic competition also exists in the competition of different languages and civilizations, but it only reflects their respective "vitality" levels. It is really difficult for anthropologists to evaluate different cultural traditions. But on the battlefield, the advantages and disadvantages of weapons invented by different cultural traditions are clear at a glance. In the state of isolation from each other, different groups and their own cultures can naturally derive, but in the era when modern groups meet and compete fiercely, an objective competition rule appears, which determines their own destiny. In the early days of capitalist civilization, its performance in communication and competition with other civilizations was actually quite barbaric, which fully shows that before human society really understands the connotation of culture and learns to deal with the relationship between different civilizations in a civilized way, the competition rules among civilizations are still the jungle law of "the jungle law of the jungle". Predicting the Fate of Counter-revolutionary Countries The social revolution in Europe swept the whole of Europe in the19th century. Marx and Engels believed that such a revolutionary storm directly involved all ethnic groups in Europe in a struggle of polarization and opposition between the two camps, which made their respective "vitality" and their political roles as "representatives of historical progress or reaction" particularly distinct, and made all ethnic groups directly fall into a political pedigree with only two colors. In Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany, Engels once again declared: "These dying peoples, such as Czechs, Credians, Dalmatians, etc. , are trying to use 1848 general chaos to restore their political status quo in 800 AD. The history of the past 1000 years should have been told to them. It is impossible to go backwards like this ... the wave of pan-Slavism (in the Slavic regions of Germany and Hungary, it covered up the attempts of countless small ethnic groups to restore independence) clashed with revolutionary movements all over Europe. At the same time, although Slavs want to play the role of freedom fighters, they always stand on the side of absolutism and reactionary forces (except some Polish Democrats). " As for whether the purpose of 1848 Yugoslavia's independence struggle is "to suppress the revolution in Germany and Hungary", it is still a point that needs to be demonstrated. Paradoxically, perhaps it is precisely because they are under the rule of Prussia and Austro-Hungarian Empire that it is possible for these ethnic minorities to contact and absorb the concept of "nation" in the modern sense from the "progressive (German-Hungarian) nation" and produce the "nationalism" movement of independent founding. However, in the struggle against the ruling nation, their ally was Tsarist Russia, the "reactionary fortress" of Europe, and at least some of them (upper class aristocrats) had the political goal of restoring the feudal system before being conquered. Therefore, "nationalism" is a double-edged sword, which can not only replace hereditary feudal rule by establishing a "citizen nation state" during the industrial revolution, but also become a mobilization tool for some feudal restorers in the struggle for "national independence". Engels called these small and weak ethnic groups "dying ethnic groups" and labeled their struggle for independence as "counter-revolutionary", probably because the political coordinates of these forces stood in the traditional position of feudal separatism and opposed the rule of capitalist regime. These viewpoints fully demonstrate the characteristics of "national Marxism". Marx and Engels clearly pointed out that this kind of national independence movement is not only not conducive to the proletarian revolution, but also a "reversal of history." Therefore, in their works, Marx and Engels constantly expressed their contempt, resentment and curse for these "reactionary peoples" who played a "counter-revolutionary" role, and even expected these "reactionary peoples" to "completely disappear from the earth". It may be difficult for people today to understand the fierce words of these two great thinkers about certain nationalities, but these black and white words clearly tell us that this is the real Marx and Engels and their political stance.