By avoiding the question of the origin of capital in Russia, the Narodniks were able instead to concentrate only on the question of the growth of capitalism at the expense of the natural economy. Yet, if the expansion of capitalism can only be explained in this way, it is a very limited expansion that is possible because once all of the direct producers become commodity producers, the ability expand at their expense comes to an end. Marx deals with this in Theories of Surplus Value, where he notes that the process of primary accumulation involves concentrating existing means of production, whereas, once capital, thereby, comes into existence, the process of capital accumulation is one in which capital begets capital, via the accumulation of surplus value.
Yet, Krasin argues,
“capitalism did indeed (?), in its infancy, develop in this very easy (sic!?) way (very easy because here existing branches of labour are involved) and is partly developing in the same direction even now (??), since there are still remnants of natural economy in the world, and since the population is growing.” (p 92)
But, this is not an easy way of expanding, Lenin says, but only an easy way of the Narodniks trying to explain the existence of capital in Russia. Instead of actually explaining how capitalism arose and expanded, they “confine themselves to comparing the “sore spot” in our system, capitalism, with the “healthy spot,” the direct producers, the “people”; the former is put on the left, the latter on the right, and all this profound thinking is rounded off with sentimental phrases about what is “harmful” and what is “useful” for “human society.” (p 92-3)
The “anti-imperialists” put forward a similar moralistic dichotomy in relation to developing economies, in which the domestic production is portrayed as somehow natural and useful, whereas large-scale foreign investment is portrayed as unnatural and harmful.
Lenin defines commodity production as,
“an organisation of social economy in which goods are produced by separate, isolated producers, each specialising in the making of some one product, so that to satisfy the needs of society it is necessary to buy and sell products (which, therefore, become commodities) in the market.” (p 93)
As Marx describes, this is actually consistent with an economy based on direct producers. The characteristic of direct production is not that the direct producer produces all of the use values required for their own consumption. Apart from very primitive societies, that has never been the case. From very early on, communities, starting with nomadic tribes, engaged in trade. They obtained some of the use values they required by exchanging some of their own products for them. It is the gradual expansion of this trade which then leads to some of these products being produced specifically for the purpose of being traded – they become commodities – and different communities specialise in producing different products based upon their own specific advantages.
Its not the absence of exchange or commodities that characterises direct production, but that the direct producer – whether they produce use values to consume or to exchange – does so solely as a means of meeting their own consumption needs. In other words, they do not produce to obtain exchange-value – money – or to produce profit. Lenin defines capitalism as,
“...that stage of the development of commodity production at which not only the products of human labour, but human labour-power itself becomes a commodity.” (p 93)
No comments:
Post a Comment