The Narodnik writes,
“This process, which began in Europe much earlier than ours did, has come to an end in many countries; in others it is still being held up by the debris of feudalism and by the resistance of the working classes, but the wheel of history is there, too, year by year breaking up these debris to an ever greater extent and paving the way for the new order.” (p 353)
This shows, Lenin says, just how little the Narodniks understood this process, not just in Russia, but in Western Europe too. To claim that the process of capital accumulation, of concentration and centralisation, and the differentiation of small producers into bourgeois and proletarians had come to an end was wrong. Even in Western Europe, a large number of small producers continued to be split into a small number of capitalist producers and a much larger number of proletarians. In Britain, today, there are still around 5 million businesses, and these are overwhelmingly people who are self-employed, sole traders, or small family firms. Each year, a small number of these grow into larger businesses, but many, many more go bust, their owners becoming wage workers. Similarly, each year, some workers and sections of the middle-class, establish new businesses. But, again, of these a small number grow, but the large majority go bust.
But, in this quote, the Narodnik puts forward the typical Sismondist view, also found in the ranks of the “anti-capitalists” and “anti-imperialists” that the role of the labour movement was to “hold up” the process of capitalist development. This reactionary view is also put forward by the proponents of Lexit, as well as some of those in favour of Scottish independence, and other petty-bourgeois nationalist endeavours.
“This is clear proof that in respect of not only Russia, but also of the West, our Narodniks are incapable of understanding how one can fight capitalism by speeding up its development, and not by “holding it up,” not by pulling it back, but by pushing it forward, not in reactionary, but in progressive fashion.” (p 353)
The Narodnik writer also presents a petty-bourgeois scenario that has similarities to that put forward by James Burnham. The difference is that for Burnham the new petty-bourgeois ruling class is formed out of the managerial elite, whereas for the Narodnik, it is formed by elements that fall from the nobility and those that rise from the peasantry.
“In its general features this process consists of the following: between the nobility and the people a new social stratum is being formed of elements that descend from above and of elements that rise from below, who, as it were, are of equal relative weight, if one may so express oneself; these elements are welding themselves closely together, are joining forces, undergoing a profound inner change and beginning to change both the upper and the lower strata, adapting them to their requirements. This process is extremely interesting in itself, but for us it is of particularly great significance. For us a whole series of questions arise: does the rule of the third estate constitute a fatal and inevitable stage in the civilisation of each people?...” (p 353)
The question, in relation to Russia, was meaningless, because whatever may or may not have been inevitable, the reality was, as described by the Narodnik himself, that Russia already was passing through such a stage. It was already capitalism which dominated the economy, and, thereby, determined that bourgeois interests dominated. It was that which determined that the state would act to promote those bourgeois interests.
“Only a romantic can think that interests are to be combated by syllogisms.” (p 354)
No comments:
Post a Comment