The fact is that the historical conditions consisted of the mass of direct producers being deprived of their means of production, whilst a minority accumulated them in their hands, and this led to the formation of two different social classes with antagonistic interests. This circumstance arose not because of some subjective will of the individuals, other than in the most trivial sense, but, in fact, develops behind their backs, as part of the unfolding of natural laws. Its not that a section of peasants set out consciously to become capitalists. Nor could they do so, simply on the basis of a subjective desire, because that requires the existence of a whole series of other conditions outside their control. Rather, it is the existence of these conditions that enables some producers, who find themselves in a privileged position, to accumulate money, whilst other producers, who find themselves in a disadvantageous position, to need to sell their labour-power, to obtain money. It means that the former, in then employing the latter turn their money into capital, whilst the latter are increasingly reduced to the need to obtain income exclusively from the sale of their labour-power. It is the formation of capital that converts the former into capitalists, and the exclusion from ownership of capital that converts the latter into proletarians. It is these interests of these different social formations, which then determines the ideas that each group are led to develop and pursue.
“Unable to understand these antagonistic relations, unable to find in these latter the social elements with which the “solitary individuals” could join forces, the subjectivists confined themselves to concocting theories which consoled the “solitary” individuals with the statement that history is made by “living individuals.” The famous “subjective method in sociology” expresses nothing, absolutely nothing, but good intentions and bad understanding.” (p 398)
Mikhailovsky's description of the development of capitalism in Western Europe is a clear expression of this, Lenin says. This development, according to Mikhailovsky, proceeded without reason or conscious sentiment, because, at the time it was happening, science and the rationality based upon it, was not really developed. Now that it was, Russia could proceed on the basis of it, and, thereby, avoid all the evils that capitalist development had brought with it. Lenin responds.
“What nonsense it is to say that reason and sentiment were absent when capitalism arose! Of what does capitalism consist if not of definite relations between people—and people without reason and sentiments are so far unknown. And what an untruth it is to say that only “insignificant” influence of the reason and sentiment of “individuals living” at that time was brought to bear on the “course of things”! Quite the contrary. People in sound mind and judgement then erected extremely well-made sluices and dams, which forced the refractory peasant into the mainstream of capitalist exploitation; they created extremely artful by-pass channels of political and financial measures through which swept capitalist accumulation and capitalist expropriation that were not content with the action of economic laws alone.” (p 399)
The petty-bourgeoisie always sees its interests as equal to the interests of society. It sees these interests as the ones that society would pursue if it proceeded on the basis of reason rather than grossness of interests. It is the outlook of a group that straddles the two dominant social classes. Today, the two dominant social classes are those that represent socialised capital, i.e. the associated producers of the working-class, and those that represent fictitious capital, i.e. the owners of loanable money-capital, the shareholders, bondholders etc. The political centrists represent such a position based upon conservative social democracy, which persisted for 30 years, due to peculiar economic conditions that enabled asset prices to inflate in a series of bubbles. But, they are unable to understand that this political centre collapsed, after the 2008 financial meltdown, because it signified that those conditions had come to an end. Either the interests of socialised capital would prevail, and asset prices would be permanently reduced, or else socialised capital, on which the state rests, would be fundamentally weakened. It would mean real capital being liquidated, and converted to revenue, in order to continue to inflate those bubbles. That leads to those seeking a more fundamental reversion to earlier forms of capital advancing their own cause, which, in turn, leads to conservative elements seeking to defend the existing social relations, but on the basis of some form of authoritarian, Bonapartist state. These trends have become apparent with Brexit and Trumpism, as well as across Europe.
The political centre collapses because of this drag to the Right, on the one hand, and because there is a similar drag to the Left, asserting the interests of the actual socialised capital, a recognition of its needs for greater capital accumulation, more regulation and planning, larger unrestricted markets, and free movement etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment