Lenin then gives two examples of why this Narodnik agenda put them objectively in the camp of the reactionaries, whatever their subjective intentions may have been.
The first example involves a landlord, Madame K, who had a farm in which local peasants provided labour in return for grain, and the provision of cattle runs and pastures. The example is really the same as the various “philanthropic” or enlightened industrial capitalists such as Fry, Cadbury and Lever, in Britain who provided their workers with model villages, shops, and other facilities, or the development of corporate welfare systems, introduced by large companies, in the US, towards the end of the 19th century.
Madame K provided the peasants with flour to last them over most of the Winter, almost until they could harvest their own grain. Madame K also provided the peasants with good quality seed, from which they were able to obtain better yields. The consequence was that the standard of living of these peasants was higher than that of other peasants, just as the standard of living and welfare of the workers of Fry, Cadbury and Lever was better than that of other workers that did not enjoy these benefits. The same was true of the workers in the US that worked for those large corporations that provided company welfare schemes that provided their workers with things such as medical care, sports clubs, and so on. The benefit to the company of these schemes was obvious, and certainly recognised by Henry Ford. Not only did it keep the worker tied to the company, but by producing generally healthier and contented workers, they created more productive workers, workers who were less likely to be disruptive, form trades unions, or, worse still, seek something more than simply a less onerous exploitation of their labour. The introduction, by Bismark, of National Insurance, and a welfare state, simply applied these principles on behalf of the aggregate social capital. It formed the basis of the social-democratic, welfare states introduced by all developed capitalist economies in the 20th century.
As Lenin points out, this example does not at all disprove the existence of contradictory interests between Madam K and the peasants, as the Narodniks presumed in lauding this arrangement. She did not provide them with Winter flour, seed, or the use of pasture and cattle runs out of the goodness of her heart; she did so only in return for the labour they provided on her land. Moreover, the flour she provided did not even last until their own harvests. But, assume it did, Lenin says, and further assume that the seed they planted, and the pasture and cattle runs enabled them to be not “almost” prosperous, but actually prosperous. Would these peasants then ““perform all the jobs on Madame K.’s estate thoroughly, punctually and swiftly,” as they do now?” (p 244)
Of course, if the peasants were able to be actually prosperous, there would be no need for them to perform unpaid labour on Madame K's farm in return for winter flour, or the provision of seed, and rent of pasture and cattle runs. If they were actually prosperous, they would be able to provide their own Winter flour, grain and so on, either from their own direct production, or from money income from sales of their output, and similarly, from such money income, they would be able to pay for the rent of pastures etc. if not actually to buy the land required.
“Evidently, the ideas of the “friends of the people” are, in essence, the same: as true petty-bourgeois ideologists, they do not want to abolish exploitation, but to mitigate it, they do not want conflict, but conciliation. Their broad ideals, from the standpoint of which they so vigorously fulminate against the narrow-minded Social-Democrats, go no further than the “prosperous” peasant who performs his “duties” to the landlords and capitalists, provided the landlords and capitalists treat him fairly.” (p 244)
Of course, “Social-Democrat”, here, meant “Marxist”, as opposed to the actual social-democrats, as defined by Marx, for example, in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. It was the term adopted by the Second International, but is also why Lenin, in breaking away from the second International insisted on a return to the use of the term “Communist”. In the 20th century, the term Social-Democrat actually referred to the petty-bourgeois ideology being criticised here, by Lenin, which is why Lenin insisted on the use of the term “Communist” so as to distinguish themselves from it.
No comments:
Post a Comment