The Narodnik writer says,
“The history of the third estate in Western Europe is an exceedingly long one.... We, of course, shall not repeat all this history, despite the teaching of the fatalists; nor will the enlightened representatives of our third estate proceed, of course, to utilise the same means for achieving their aims as were resorted to previously, and will only take from them those that are most suitable and correspond to the conditions of place and time. To deprive the peasantry of the land and create a factory proletariat they will not, of course, resort to crude military force or the no less crude clearing of estates.” (p 358)
But, Lenin says, this is simply a fantasy that already had forgotten the history of the ruination of the peasantry following the reform.
Lenin provides another quote from the Narodnik, setting out how, instead of the violent methods applied in Russia, the provision of credit, formation of consumers and producers associations etc., would ensure that these strong elements would prosper and the weak would be replaced. But, what does such a perspective, therefore, amount to?
“How well described are all these credit, raw-material, and miscellaneous other associations, all these measures for encouraging assiduity, sobriety and education, towards which such a touching attitude is displayed by our contemporary liberal-Narodnik press, including the Russkoye Bogatstvo. All that remains for the Marxist is to emphasise what has been said, to agree fully that all this is mere representation of the third estate, and, consequently, those who show tender concern for it are nothing more than little bourgeois people.” (p 358-9)
The liberal-Narodniks, of the 1890's, attacked the Marxists for not engaging in demanding such measures, and taking a part in practical action of this kind. Well, of course, Lenin says, the Marxists would not take part in supporting demands that amount to purely bourgeois demands, nor in practical action that amounts to simply becoming bourgeois themselves. Not making such demands and not taking part in such actions, however, is not the same as opposing them either. As Lenin describes in relation to the land reforms introduced by Stolypin, these were rational bourgeois proposals that facilitated the development of capitalism in Russia. As such, there was no reason for Marxists to oppose them, and they didn't. But nor was there a reason why the Marxists would support them either. The Marxists did not seek to promote purely bourgeois reforms or a development of capitalism for its own sake. The development of capitalism that was already occurring was simply a necessary means of moving forward to Socialism. The way that would occur would be via the most rapid development of capitalism itself. So, the Marxists had absolutely no reason to oppose measures that brought about a more rational and rapid development of capitalism, to try to “hold it back”, as the Sismondists and Narodniks sought to do, and as today's “anti-capitalists” and “anti-imperialists” seek to do. On the contrary, they sought to identify the revolutionary and progressive elements within that forward movement, which, of necessity, strengthens all of those features that lead towards Socialism, and to promote them on the basis of promoting the interests of workers who, as the social force that is based on those same progressive developments, is the only force capable of driving them forward rationally and consistently.
No comments:
Post a Comment