Mikhailovsky applies the same kind of “dialectic” as that used by Proudhon, and criticised by Marx in The Poverty of Philosophy. That is he proposes to form a synthesis by taking what is good, and disposing of what is bad. Mikhailovsky admits that,
““The medieval forms of labour still existing in our country had been seriously shaken, but we saw no reason to put a complete end to them for the sake of any doctrine whatever, liberal or non-liberal.” (p 188)
But, as Lenin says,
“Obviously, “forms of labour” of any kind can be shaken only if they are superseded by some other forms; yet we do not find our author (nor would we find any of his like-minded friends, for that matter) even attempting to analyse and to explain these new forms, or to ascertain why they supplant the old.” (p 188)
In other words, Mikhailovsky is forced to admit that capitalism had already established itself in Russia. Feudalism, in Russia, as everywhere else, does not collapse as the precondition for the rise of capitalism, but quite the opposite; it is the rise of capitalism, as a superior mode of production, that undermines, and brings about the demise of, feudalism. Moreover, as Lenin points out, Mikhailovsky's statement about putting an end to the previous mode of production is absurd.
“What means do “we” (i.e., the socialists—see the above reservation) possess to “put an end” to forms of labour, that is, to reconstruct the existing production relations between the members of society? Is not the idea of remaking these relations in accordance with a doctrine absurd?” (p 188)
The above reservation Lenin refers to is that Mikhailovsky's definition of what and who the socialists are did not at all reflect the reality or the views of the Marxists, in Russia, or elsewhere. What Mikhailovsky proposed was to keep the medieval forms of labour, based upon the village and individual ownership of the means of production, and to graft on to it all of those “good” things that flow from the capitalist mode of production in the West, in place of the existing Tsarist social relations, and the political regime sitting above it.
“Here the whole subjective method in sociology is as clear as daylight: sociology starts with a utopia—the labourers ownership of the land—and indicates the conditions for realising the desirable, namely, “take” what is good from here and from there. This philosopher takes a purely metaphysical view of social relations as of a simple mechanical aggregation of various institutions, a simple mechanical concatenation of various phenomena.” (p 188-9)
But, the cultivator's ownership of the land could not be separated from all of the other productive and social relations that go with it. Those links involved the land being divided up by the landlords. Each peasant obtained an area of land sufficient to provide for their own requirements (equivalent of wages), as well as a surplus product (equivalent of rent or profit). In other words, this arrangement was precisely the means by which the landlord pumped surplus labour/value out of the labourer. And, why does Mikhailovsky not pursue these social relations?
“Because the author does not know how to handle social problems: he (I repeat, I am using Mr. Mikhailovsky’s arguments only as an example for criticising Russian socialism as a whole) does not set out at all to explain the then existing “forms of labour” and to present them as a definite system of production relations, as a definite social formation. To use Marx’s expression, the dialectical method, which requires us to regard society as a living organism in its functioning and development, is alien to him.” (p 189)
And, when Mikhailovsky comes to examine the new economic and social relations, he makes the same mistake. He sees the individual cultivator being dispossessed of their land, but does not connect this to being in consequence of a new set of economic and social relations. In other words, as soon as commodity production becomes generalised, and the market increases in size, competition between commodity producers necessarily increases. Some win out, and some lose, in that competitive struggle. The winners take over the means of production of the latter. The latter become wage workers.
“And here again his argument is utterly absurd: he plucks out one phenomenon (land dispossession), without even attempting to present it as an element of a now different system of production relations based on commodity economy, which necessarily begets competition among the commodity producers, inequality, the ruin of some and the enrichment of others. He noted one thing, the ruin of the masses, and put aside the other, the enrichment of the minority, and this made it impossible for him to understand either.” (p 189-90)
No comments:
Post a Comment