Chapter 2 - A Criticism of Narodnik Sociology
Lenin now examines Struve's book, and his critique of Narodnik, subjectivist sociology. As Lenin describes, Struve attacks Narodnik subjectivism from the perspective of objectivism not Marxism (materialism). The objectivist agrees that historical events occur because of some objective necessity, whereas the Marxist analyses the actual material conditions that exist, and sees the unfolding of historical events from the perspective of the class struggle. Objectivism can lead to apologism, by suggesting that what happens always must happen, because it is determined by objective necessity, by simply the unfolding of logic. But, Marxism is much richer and nuanced than this, because, whilst it accepts that the formation of classes is a consequence of the unfolding of natural laws, these classes, once formed, play an active role in determining material reality. The Marxist, therefore, by identifying the progressive class in all such development, is not simply a passive observer or commentator on some objectively determined, necessary, historical process, but a partisan participant in that process itself.
Struves' objectivism is a weakness that runs through his critique of Narodism. According to Struve, the essence of Narodism is its belief in Russian exceptionalism – the idea that Russia could follow some unique path of economic development. The theory, he says, has two sources, and both are expressions of Narodnik, subjectivist sociology. The first is the belief in the role of the individual in history, whereby history is created by individuals. The second is a belief that the Russian people itself possessed some kind of special and specific natural character and spirit that led them to forge their own unique path of historical development. This, combined with the petty-bourgeois socialist, or peasant socialist agenda of the Narodniks, leads Struve to describe it as National Socialism. That is before that term acquired a more definite expression in the form of Stalinism, on the one hand, and Nazism on the other.
In fact, Lenin says, a more accurate description of the earlier Narodism, as represented, for example, by Narodnaya Volya, who argued for “going amongst the people”, is peasant socialism. A later equivalent is Maoism. So, also, when Struve talks about the Narodniks having “quite definite ideals”, this should not be taken literally, because the Narodniks ideology was vague. It simply meant that they pursued a set of ideals that were determined by the interests of the peasants, and petty-bourgeois. However, it is the heterogeneous nature of these classes that makes it impossible to have anything other than ideals that are themselves heterogeneous and vague. As Marx describes in The Eighteenth Brumaire, its on these layers that Bonapartists rest, and it is only in the form of some form of Bonapartism or Junta that such layers can become dominant, as the Bonaparte imposes a discipline upon them. Yet, inevitably, the Bonapartist regime must itself address its actions to the requirements of the ruling class, of the dominant form of property upon which the future of the state itself depends, and so must either, as with Louis Bonaparte, look forward to the interests of the bourgeoisie, as against the interests of the landed aristocracy, with which it is struggling, or else, as in the case of Hitler, it must look backwards to the bourgeoisie, as against the interests of the rising working-class, with which it is struggling. Similarly, the Bonapartist regime of Stalin was led to look forward to the interests of the working-class, as against the interests of the bourgeoisie and landed aristocracy.
Lenin also points out that, in terms of the liberal Narodism of the 1890's, Struve should have described it as petty-bourgeois socialism, because, as a result of the development of the market, of commodity production, and of capital, in the intervening period, the differentiation of the peasantry, which began in the 1860's, had, by the 1890's, resulted in a quite definite separation into a bourgeoisie and proletariat, not only in handicraft production, but also in agricultural production, even if not as well defined as the development of an industrial bourgeoisie and proletariat in the towns. The Narodniks of the 1890's represented the views of these small commodity producers, i.e. of the petty bourgeoisie. It is the predominance of these small commodity producers, Lenin says, that explains Narodism.
“I use the expression “petty bourgeois” not in the ordinary, but in the political-economic sense. A small producer, operating under a system of commodity economy—these are the two features of the concept “petty bourgeois,” Kleinbürger, or what is the same thing, the Russian meshchanin. It thus includes both the peasant and the handicraftsman, whom the Narodniks always placed on the same footing—and quite rightly, for they are both producers, they both work for the market, and differ only in the degree of development of commodity economy.” (p 396)
No comments:
Post a Comment