In this work, Lenin not only continues his criticism of the Narodnik economic analysis, and the Sismondist economic theories behind it, but also moves on to attack the philosophical framework, and subjectivist sociology upon which it rests. Lenin begins the book by attacking these philosophical and sociological foundations on which Narodism was based, and does so in the context of responding to the attack on Marxism presented by Mikhailovsky. Mikhailovskyy attacked the concept of historical materialism, claiming that nowhere in his numerous writings had Marx set out “his materialist conception of history”, in the way, for example, Darwin had set down his theory of evolution on the basis of natural selection.
Marx had brought together masses of data, and the ideas of “theoreticians of economic science long forgotten or unknown to anybody today”, and presented that data and analysis with a “combination of logical force with erudition”. In this, Mikhailovsky says there is a real comparison with Darwin, but if, like Darwin, Marx had created some new theory explaining this development or social evolution, “where is the appropriate work by Marx? It does not exist. And not only does no such work by Marx exist, but there is none to be found in all Marxist literature, despite its voluminous and extensive character.”” (p 134)
Lenin says this is typical of the lack of understanding of Marx's work, and cites the epigraph chosen by Kautsky for his book on Marx's economic teaching, which concludes, “We would like to be exalted less, but read more diligently!” (Note, p 134) A similar comment could be made today, especially of those many religious devotees of Marx, on the Internet, who are quick with a dogmatic assertion, but appear to be lacking in any extensive reading of Marx, himself, and even less understanding of what he says.
Mikhailovsky's claim that Marx provided no new theory explaining social development is disproved by simply reading Capital, Lenin says. But, Mikhailovsky's current view was also contradicted by what he had, himself, previously written. In 1877, Mikhailovsky had written,
“...It is the ultimate aim of this work, to lay bare the law of development (in the original: das oekonomische Bewegungsgesetz—the economic law of motion) of modern society, Karl Marx says in reference to his Capital, and he adheres strictly to this programme.” (p 135)
Lenin focuses on Marx's reference to modern society in the above quote, to emphasise that Marx was only investigating the application of his law in relation to the development of capitalism. But, Lenin's argument is itself a bit restrictive in doing so. Marx, in analysing the development of capitalism necessarily examines, or at least describes, the conditions out of which that development arises, just as, in analysing the continued development of capital, and its concentration and centralisation, he is drawn to conclusions about the dissolution of private capital, still within the confines of the capitalist system, and its replacement by socialised capital, which constitutes a transitional form of property upon which must also arise new social formations.
Marx, for example, analyses precapitalist forms of rent, and their development towards Money Rent, which is the form it assumes before being dissolved by the development of capitalist rent. Moreover, most of Marx's analysis of value and exchange-value is undertaken on the assumption that commodities exchange at their values, but that condition only exists in precapitalist modes of production. Marx makes the assumption, in Capital I and II, mostly as a simplifying assumption, so as to facilitate the presentation of his theory in relation to the commodity, money and capital, but this understanding of the basis of commodity exchange by individual, independent commodity producers is itself basic to understanding how this necessarily leads to the development of capital itself, as a consequence of competition (a point that Lenin had brought out in On The So Called Market Question, and to understanding the process by which competition leads to the development of an average annual rate of profit, and prices of production.
But, the thrust of Lenin's argument is correct. Capital is about applying the theory to a specific manifestation of the process of social development, i.e. the development of capitalism. A wider presentation of the theory is set out in “The Communist Manifesto”. A clear statement of it is set out in Engels Letter to Bloch. A more extensive application of it is provided in Engels' “The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State”, as well as in “Anti-Duhring”, and in Marx's “The Poverty of Philosophy”.
No comments:
Post a Comment