In the same way that Marx, in Theories of Surplus Value, examines the material basis of the various strands of political economy, from the Mercantilists, through the Physiocrats, to Classical Economy and Critical Economy, to vulgar economy, so too Lenin says, the reason for him examining the data, provided by Zemstvo statisticians is to locate the material foundations of Narodnik ideology.
“Illustrations and examples of the economy of our peasants and handicraftsmen show what this “peasant” is whose ideologists the “friends of the people” want to be. They demonstrate the bourgeois character of our rural economy and thus confirm the correctness of classifying the “friends of the people” as ideologists of the petty bourgeoisie. But this is not all; they show that there is the closest connection between the ideas and programmes of our radicals and the interests of the petty bourgeoisie. It is this connection, which will become even clearer after a detailed examination of their programme, that explains why these radical ideas are so widespread in our “society”; it also admirably explains the political servility of the “friends of the people” and their readiness for compromise.” (p 234)
This analysis applies equally today to the “anti-imperialists” and “anti-capitalists”. Not only are these trends comprised almost exclusively of the middle class, but their programme and practice is based upon alliances with, or cheerleading of, petty-bourgeois nationalist movements and regimes, and the promotion of petty-bourgeois ideas and sentiments. In a comment today's “anti-capitalists” and “anti-imperialists” (who claim to be Marxists, and even Leninists) should take note of, especially those that claim that capitalism is no longer progressive, Lenin says,
“A study and description of these economics was the simplest way to reply in substance to one of the most widespread objections to Social-Democracy current among people here. Proceeding from the usual idea that capitalism contradicts the “people’s system,” and observing that the Social-Democrats regard large-scale capitalism as progressive, that it is large-scale capitalism that they want to have as their basis in combating the present robber regime—our radicals, without more ado, accuse the Social-Democrats of ignoring the interests of the mass of the peasant population, of desiring “to put every muzhik through the factory melting pot,” etc.
All these arguments are based on the amazingly illogical and strange procedure of judging capitalism by what it really is, but the countryside by what it “might be.” (p 234)
As Lenin says, the basis of this criticism is the Narodnik insistence of dealing with capitalism – by which they only meant large-scale machine industry – by what it is, whilst judging “people's industry” by what it might be. The same is true, most clearly, of the “anti-imperialists”, who judge “imperialism”, i.e. large-scale multinational capital, on the basis of what it is – and often not even that, but a parody of it, and an equation of it with imperialist military intervention – but judge the petty-bourgeois nationalist regimes, and the domestic capital on which they rest, by what it might be, thereby reneging on their duty to analyse the nature of that capital, and the more onerous exploitation and oppression it inflicts. All aspects of that more onerous and grotesque exploitation, which flows from the less developed nature of that domestic capital, is instead blamed on “imperialism”, and “super exploitation”, the “development of underdevelopment” and other such tripe.
The existence of child labour, in less developed economies, is no more the product of imperialism, for example, than was the existence of child labour in Britain, in the 19th century. Quite the contrary, it is the product of a less mature form of capital, wheres imperialism, in the shape of large scale industrial investment is the most rapid means by which that less developed form of capital can be superseded, that the working-class organises into trades unions to oppose such exploitation, and organises to demand factory laws, child labour laws, and so on. The same is true of the “anti-capitalists” who focus their ire on the large capitals, but are never to be seen protesting against the small capitalists whose exploitation of their workers is far more grotesque.
“Naturally, there could be no better reply to this than to show them the real countryside and its real economics. ” (p 234)
And, indeed, we are a long way today from the days, in the 1970's, when we mobilised thousands of pickets outside the small Grunwicks photo processing laboratory, in support of its grossly exploited and oppressed workers, and their demands for trades union rights, and simply to be treated in a civilised manner. We hear a lot about sweatshops in Asia, producing clothes and footwear for multinational sportswear and and clothing retailers, but little about the thousands of sweatshops operating in Britain, producing items sold on stalls, in local markets, and so on. Only when we hear of a tragedy such as that of the cockle collectors in Morecambe, do we get any light shone on the activities of these small capitalists and gang masters operating in Britain, and then attention usually soon disappears from sight after only a few days of headlines.
“When you compare the descriptions of peasant economy given by our radicals with precise first hand data on rural economic life, you are astonished that there is no place in the criticised system of views for that mass of small hucksters who swarm in each of these markets, all these higglers and chafferers or whatever else the peasants call them in different localities, for all that mass of petty exploiters who dominate the markets and ruthlessly oppress the working people.” (p 235)
No comments:
Post a Comment