cannot at any time be instrumental in deciding between them.
In discussing the fate of Frederick II., Plechanov repeats the general pattern of analysis. Buturlin saved Frederick’s neck. Suvorov would have wrung it. But the effects in either case would have depended on the social-economic conditions of Europe. Nonetheless, the admission is clearly made that the history of Prussia would read quite differently if it had been Suvorov instead of Buturlin. That it was Buturlin and not Suvorov is an accident. Therefore, and this is really courageous coming from an orthodox Marxist, “It follows that sometimes the fate of nations depends on accidents, which may be called accidents of the second degree.”[1] A historical accident, as Plechanov had the merit of seeing, is not an uncaused event. As Cournot had long before pointed out, it is the point of intersection between two or more series of events which are themselves determined. The point of intersection cannot be predicted from the laws determining any or all of the series. It is clear that whoever takes the role of accident in history seriously cannot be a monist. But orthodox Marxists are monists. Hence we await Plechanov’s attempt to wriggle out from the contradiction between his theoretical dogma and his empirical reading of history.
It takes the form of a shift from one question to another. Accidents count—superficially and ultimately. But despite all this, historical determinism as understood by Engels is valid. Why? Because accidents “do not in the least hinder the scientific investigation of history.” Granted, although one might wonder whether inability to predict these “accidents” does not hinder in some respect their scientific investigation. Granted, but what has this to do with the issue as between a great variety of historical theories, all of which assume that accidents are no bar to the scientific investigation of history? That issue is: which of the hypotheses associated with the theory of heroic determinism, historical materialism, climatic variation (Huntington), psychological determinism (McDougall, Tarde, Freud), etc., enable us to systematize our existing knowledge of society and history most coherently and to predict most reliably what the course of future historical events will be? Or, to state it differently, granted that the field of history is “subject” to laws, what kind of laws, or combination of laws, will enable us to predict historical developments with the degree of accuracy relevant
- ↑ Plechanov, op. cit., p. 42.
