The Narodniks refused to accept that within Russian agriculture a differentiation of the peasantry already existed, into a bourgeoisie and proletariat. All of the Narodniks' demands would have strengthened the position of the former and weakened that of the latter. But, because they refused to accept the existence of the division, and the fundamental antagonism it creates they instead “dream of stopping the struggle by measures that would satisfy everybody, to achieve reconciliation and unity.” (p 238)
A similar thing could be seen in relation to Brexit, particularly within the Labour Party, where a refusal to see that Brexit represents a fundamental antagonism between two great class camps results in a reactionary and Utopian demand that both sides compromise and come together to sing Kumbaya. The most obvious representative of this trend is the petty-bourgeois' petty-bourgeois, Lisa Nandy.
“They do not understand the antagonistic character of our production relations (within the peasantry” as within the other social estates), and instead of trying to bring this antagonism out into the open, instead of simply joining with those who are enslaved as a result of this antagonism and trying to help them rise in struggle, they dream of stopping the struggle by measures that would satisfy everybody, to achieve reconciliation and unity.” (p 238)
But, in fact, Lenin says, they can no longer deny the existence of these capitalist relations, and so their proposals “reveals an inability to understand the elementary truths of theoretical political economy, quite clearly shows how vulgar is the theory advanced by these gentlemen who try to sit between two stools.” (Note *, p 238)
The reality is that the mass of producers had already been expropriated, and no amount of credit or operation of a Peasant Bank would change that. Moreover, those that applied for such credit would be assessed on the basis of the efficiency of their farm, the extent of their saving, as collateral etc., all of which would favour the capitalist farmers, or the richer farmers becoming capitalist farmers.
“The same must be said of “artels,” and “common cultivation.” Mr. Yuzhakov called the latter “the socialisation of agriculture.” This is merely funny, of course, because socialisation requires the organisation of production on a wider scale than the limits of a single village, and because it necessitates the expropriation of the “blood-suckers” who have monopolised the means of production and now direct Russian social economy. And this requires struggle, struggle and struggle, and not paltry philistine moralising.” (p 239)
Its clear what the Narodniks want, Lenin says, having quoted Krivenko,
“They want commodity economy without capitalism—capitalism without expropriation and without exploitation, with nothing but a petty bourgeoisie peacefully vegetating under the wing of humane landlords and liberal administrators. And, with the serious mien of a departmental official who intends to confer a boon on Russia, they set about contriving schemes under which the wolves have their fill and the sheep their skins.” (p 240)
The Narodniks are literal opponents of capitalism, but objectively proponents of capitalism, because their programme objectively promotes the development of the bourgeoisie and capitalist production. They were also literal opponents of Tsarism, but objectively proponents of Tsarism, because their programme, in attempting to preserve all the aspects of peasant production, cannot escape the reality that, were that to happen, it could only be on the basis of preserving all the social relations that went with it, such as landlordism, and Asiatic despotism, which was the social foundation on which Tsarism rested. Whatever good intentions they had, the consequence of them was reactionary. They are the good intentions with which the road to hell is paved.
No comments:
Post a Comment