Lenin notes a problem with Struve's account related to the point made earlier of the difference between objectivism and Marxism. Lenin notes Struve's comment in relation to Mikhailovsky.
““According to his view,” the author says, “there are no insurmountable historical tendencies which, as such, should serve on the one hand as a starting-point, and on the other as unavoidable bounds to the purposeful activity of individuals and social groups”” (p 401)
Struve, of course, believes there are bounds, because they are determined by logical necessity. The Marxist also believes there are bounds, but they are not set by logical necessity but by material conditions, including the role of contending classes in shaping events.
“The objectivist speaks of the necessity of a given historical process; the materialist gives an exact picture of the given social-economic formation and of the antagonistic relations to which it gives rise. When demonstrating the necessity for a given series of facts, the objectivist always runs the risk of becoming an apologist for these facts: the materialist discloses the class contradictions and in so doing defines his standpoint. The objectivist speaks of “insurmountable historical tendencies”; the materialist speaks of the class which “directs” the given economic system, giving rise to such and such forms of counteraction by other classes. Thus, on the one hand, the materialist is more consistent than the objectivist, and gives profounder and fuller effect to his objectivism. He does not limit himself to speaking of the necessity of a process, but ascertains exactly what social-economic formation gives the process its content, exactly what class determines this necessity.” (p 401)
In the case of Russia, therefore, the Marxist, having analysed the material conditions and the existing social classes concludes that the path of development necessarily continues in the direction of capitalist development, pushed in that direction by the dominant social class, unless it is pushed into another path of development by another social class. But, on the basis of this same analysis, the Marxist assesses that the only social class capable of that is the industrial working-class, and this alternative path of development, of necessity, is that of Socialism. But, as Lenin sets out, in the quotes provided earlier, from Two Tactics of Social-Democracy, from Imperialism, and from Left-Wing Childishness, the socialist path of development, in its economic form is indistinguishable from the path of capitalism itself. It involves the rapid accumulation of capital, and rapid development of technology; it involves the concentration and centralisation of this capital into ever larger industrial units; it involves the creation of industrial trusts and cartels, able to share research and development costs; it involves the introduction of scientific management, of standardisation of production and so on; it involves the extension of long-term planning, within the enterprise, of production, sales, marketing and finance; it involves the continuous replacement of the market and substitution for it of this planned production, which requires the involvement of the state itself in this process. The only thing that differs in this, in the socialist path of development, compared to the capitalist path of development, is the political factor of the workers' control over the capital, and over the state, rather than the control exercised by the bourgeoisie, by the rentier class, exercised through the boardrooms, Stock Exchanges, central banks, courts and permanent state bureaucracy.
This in itself is important, because, however much a revolutionary class may exist and seek to take history down this alternative path, it is itself constrained by these objective facts of the development of the productive forces, and speed and degree by which it can develop them. And, this can't be understood in absolute terms, because each economy continues to have to compete with others that may be more advanced. It is why, in Left-Wing Childishness, Lenin sets out the different preponderant forms of property they were confronted with, and states that state capitalism would be, for them, a great step forwards. It is why, as soon as they could escape from “War Communism”, Lenin proposed the NEP, a period of continued capitalist development that would have to continue for them until the 1950's, he estimated; it is why he sought investment from foreign multinational capital, so as to speed this process of capital accumulation and acquisition of technology and expertise.
No comments:
Post a Comment