There was nothing socialist about these petty-bourgeois theories, just as there is nothing socialist about the petty-bourgeois politics of the “anti-capitalists” and “anti-imperialists”, or the social-democratic reformists. Their political outlook is that of the petty-bourgeoisie, as an intermediate class that tries to look both ways, towards the proletariat and towards the bourgeoisie, and ends up with a reactionary and constrained form of bourgeois development.
“And this question cannot be answered unless the dual character of this class is taken into consideration (here in Russia this duality is particularly marked owing to the antagonism between the big bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie being less developed). It is progressive insofar as it puts forward general democratic demands, i.e., fights against all survivals of the medieval epoch and of serfdom; it is reactionary insofar as it fights to preserve its position as a petty bourgeoisie and tries to retard, to turn back the general development of the country along bourgeois lines. Reactionary demands of this kind, such, for example, as the notorious inalienability of allotments, as well as the many other projects for tutelage over the peasants, are usually covered up by plausible talk of protecting the working people but actually, of course, they only worsen their condition, while at the same time hampering them in their struggle for emancipation.” (p 288)
A good example of this is also Marx's approach to the question of free trade. On the one hand, bourgeois liberals advocated free trade, because they saw in it the basis of a more rational development of capital. But, they tried to sell this idea to workers on the basis that it would mean cheaper food and so on. Marx illustrates that this liberal argument in favour of free trade is a fraud, because cheaper food would mean that the value of labour-power fell, and so wages would fall leaving workers no better off. Indeed, the lower wages was one reason the bourgeoisie wanted it, so as to raise surplus value. Conservatives and reactionaries opposed free trade, because they sought to protect the rents of landlords, which rested on high food prices, and surplus agricultural profits. Protectionism was a way of protecting inefficient domestic capitalists and rents. But, the conservatives also sought to sell this idea to workers on the basis that such protectionism was really about protecting their jobs against foreign competition. This debate was again played out over Brexit. Marx demonstrated that this latter argument was also fallacious, because, by protecting inefficient capitals and monopolies against competition, it raised prices and lowered profits, which meant that capital accumulated more slowly, which meant that employment was curtailed, and living standards for workers grew more slowly.
Instead, Marx put forward the socialist argument for Free Trade, which was that it encouraged a more rapid and rational development, and accumulation of capital, which itself means that more labour is employed, but that, more importantly, in bringing about this development, it more rapidly develops the contradictions inherent in capitalism, and so hastens its replacement by Socialism.
“But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favour of free trade.”
(Marx – Speech on Free Trade)
To put it in the terms of natural science, it acts in the same way as providing seeds with a conducive environment, so that they more quickly become transformed into the plants that develop from them. As Lenin puts it in Two Tactics of Social-Democracy,
“And from these principles it follows that the idea of seeking salvation for the working class in anything save the further development of capitalism is reactionary. In countries like Russia, the working class suffers not so much from capitalism as from the insufficient development of capitalism. The working class is therefore decidedly interested in the broadest, freest and most rapid development of capitalism. The removal of all the remnants of the old order which are hampering the broad, free and rapid development of capitalism is of decided advantage to the working class.”
No comments:
Post a Comment