Lenin provides a lengthy quote from the Narodnik author in the Vestnik, which typifies the approach of moral socialism. It could be applied today to the approach of moral socialists in relation to the NHS. The Narodnik writes,
“People for whom the countryside is an abstract concept, and the muzhik an abstract Narcissus, even think badly when they say that the countryside should only be praised and be told that it is standing up splendidly to all influences destructive to it. If the countryside is placed in such a position that it must fight every day for a kopek, if it is skinned by the usurers, deceived by the kulaks, oppressed by the landlords, if it is sometimes flogged in the Volost offices, can this be without influence to its moral side?” (p 343)
This same approach, today, can be seen in the standpoint of moral socialists. The Tories, of course, praise the NHS, particularly as during the COVID19 moral panic. When Labour points to deficiencies in the NHS, the Tories howl with feigned outrage that Labour is attacking and undermining “our” glorious NHS. Of course, Labour, in making such comments, is not attacking the NHS at all, but simply attacking the Tory management of it, its underfunding and so on. But, Labour never asks the questions about why such systematic underfunding exists, or why the NHS never actually acts in the interests of workers other than insofar as that coincides with the interests of capital. It never question the nature of the NHS as a state-capitalist undertaking, which, as with the rest of the welfare state, is there to act in the interests of capital – interests which are antagonistic to the interests of workers!
The rest of the quote goes on as a lament of the condition of the Russian peasant, crushed from one side by the continued existence of the aristocracy, and on the other by the actions of the usurer, and capitalist merchants. And, in all of this lament, the Narodnik cannot understand why the state has gone down this wrong path, and not acted to return Russia to its “natural path of development” as seen from the perspective of the small peasant and independent petty-bourgeois producer. It is the same lament as given by Sismondi, and his followers. It is the same lament that is given by today's moral socialists, and reformists that bemoans the underfunding of the NHS, but fails to recognise the class basis of such a condition.
Lenin notes,
“Once again, how fine is this description of the countryside and how petty the conclusions drawn from it! How well are the facts observed and how paltry the explanation, the understanding of them! Here again we see the gigantic abyss between the desiderata of the defence of labour, and the means of fulfilling them. Capitalism in the countryside, so far as the author is concerned, is no more than a “sad phenomenon.” Despite the fact that he sees the same sort of capitalism in the towns on a big scale, that he sees how capitalism has subordinated to itself not only all spheres of the people’s labour but even “progressive” literature, which presents the measures of the bourgeoisie in the name and in behalf of the people, despite this, he refuses to admit that it is a matter of the specific organisation of our social economy, and consoles himself with dreams about its being merely a sad phenomenon called into existence by “oppressive conditions.”” (p 343-4)
The Narodnik sees the problem in terms of “non-interferene by the state”, in the same way that, today, the statists on the Left, see the solutions to all problems coming from such state intervention, be it to nationalise this or that industry, engage in “liberal intervention”, in this or that tyranny, or via simply Keynesian fiscal stimulus in the event of economic slowdowns. But, of course, the problem, now, as then, has never been a lack of interference by the state. The problem, for workers, resides in the fact that it is a capitalist state, and it “interferes” on behalf of capital, and against the interests of workers.
As Lenin says,
“But Russia has never yet witnessed a policy of non-interference; there always has been interference ... for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, and only sweet dreams of “after-dinner tranquillity” can give rise to hopes of changing this without a “redistribution of the social force between the classes,” as Mr. Struve puts it.” (p 344)
The reference to “after dinner tranquillity” is taken from Struve, who, Lenin says, paints a superb picture of liberal-Narodnik society, which sees no need for ideals, but simply seeks a quiet life based upon its petty-bourgeois dreams, in which antagonistic class relations do not exist. Struve writes,
“We forget that our society needs ideals—political, civic and others—mainly so that, having acquired a stock of them, it may be able to think of nothing; that society seeks them not with youthful eagerness but with after-dinner tranquillity, that society is not disillusioned in them with torments of the soul but with the lightness of a prince of Arcady. Such, at least, is the overwhelming majority of our society. Actually it requires no ideals because it is sated and is fully satisfied by digestive processes.” (p 344)
No comments:
Post a Comment