In contrast to the Narodniks, who regaled society with these tales of woe, warned of the horrors of the oncoming capitalism, and so appealed to society to return to the true path, the Marxists, indeed, stressed the importance of ideals and separated themselves from this “society”.
“... they sharply fence themselves off from society and consider it necessary to address themselves exclusively to those who are not “satisfied” and cannot be satisfied with “digestive processes,” for whom ideals are a necessity, for whom they are a matter of daily life.” (p 345)
And, the Narodnik author continues with the description of the horrors and corruption that this developing capitalism entailed. But, the answer to these horrors and corruption could not be found in an appeal to return to a path that never existed. The alternative to moving forward, with capitalist development, was not some petty-bourgeois, peasant nirvana but a continuation of landlordism, and all the medieval horrors that went with it. Having identified these horrors of capitalism, the Narodniks should have concluded that the only realistic, and progressive, way forward was to push through those limitations of capitalism, by its most rapid development, and, thereby, within that process, to base themselves on the only real social force that stood in antagonistic contradiction to it – the proletariat, and, in particular, the industrial proletariat.
“One would have thought that the author had so well assessed the situation that he should have understood the only possible conclusion to be drawn. If it is all a matter of our bourgeois culture, there can be no other “guarantees for the future” except in the “antipode” of this bourgeoisie, because it alone has been totally “differentiated” from this “middle-class culture,” is finally and irrevocably hostile to it and is incapable of any of the compromises out of which it is so convenient to fashion “liberal passports.”” (p 345)
The Narodnik then goes on to paint a picture of Russian capitalism, and the Russian capitalists that is similar to the approach of modern catastrophists. The Russian capitalists couldn't get all of the cultured people required to spread their middle-class ideas in the seats of learning, and other centres of culture; the Russian capitalists had no knowledge of business, in the way of their Western counterparts; and so on. In other words, all of this is presented so as to portray the Russian bourgeoisie as weak, and so unable to drive social development forward.
“And gentlemen of this sort even express surprise and pretend they do not understand why they are called romantics!” (p 346)
The Narodnik continues his description, which, in the process, admits that the organisation of production was already capitalist, but then must also paint a picture of this capitalist production as clunky and inefficient. It is typical both of the kind of moral socialist description of capitalist production in developing economies, and of the catastrophist dreams that capitalism itself is on the brink of collapse. Lenin notes,
“This passage is particularly typical in that it contains in graphic, laconic, and elegant form the line of argument which the Russian Narodniks like to clothe in scientific dress. Starting out from facts which are indisputable, which are beyond all doubt, and which prove the existence of contradictions under the capitalist system, the existence of oppression, starvation, unemployment, etc., they exert every effort to prove that capitalism is an exceedingly bad thing, is “clumsy” [cf. V. V., Kablukov (The Workers in Agriculture), and partly Mr. Nikolai—on], and “look, before you know where you are it may fall to pieces.”” (p 347)
In fact, as Lenin points out, these ridiculous Narodnik claims of impending catastrophe posed no threat to the bourgeoisie, because the reality was that Russian capitalism continued to grow, and become stronger. The same was true of the equally ridiculous warnings of catastrophe made by the Stalinists in the 1950's, and the same is true in relation to the hysterical claims of the catastrophists today. And, Lenin says, the conclusion from this, drawn by the Narodniks, is not that a class struggle is required, against this poor Russian bourgeoisie, so weak and incompetent, but only to chide it, to berate it for having taken Russia along an unnatural path of capitalist development. This same approach can be seen today amongst the “anti-imperialists”, for whom the main enemy is imperialism, which then leads them into alliances with reactionary nationalist ruling-classes and regimes, even as those regimes oppress in the most vile manner their own workers.
No comments:
Post a Comment