The existence of wage labour results in workers and some sections of the intelligentsia developing ideals that are hostile to capitalism. These ideals are useful to the Marxist who utilises them to argue for a different type of society. The Narodnik also takes these ideals and thinks that it is sufficient to do so, and to describe where they come from, so as to make an appeal to “public opinion”, based upon “modern science”, and “moral ideas”, so that “society” and “the state” will enforce these ideals. The Marxist, however, does not see it as adequate simply to point to the source of these ideals, and to make an appeal to Reason, but sets out the need to organise a struggle for such ideals, a struggle that can only be waged in partisan fashion, by a section of society, i.e. by the working-class. The Marxist does not just set themselves up as “anti-capitalist”, and argue for Socialism as an abstract ideal, but analyses reality and sets out exactly why this Socialism flows from it, what it is, and how to get to it. And, because the Marxist starts from the facts they do not simply argue for this socialist ideal abstractly, but concretely, setting out why, to achieve it, a number of material objective conditions are necessary as well as the subjective requirement of the working-class being committed to bringing it about.
“If ideals are not based on facts in this way, they will only remain pious wishes, with no chance of being accepted by the masses and, hence, of being realised.” (p 417)
Lenin then turns to Struve's discussion of Marx and Engels' theory. The Narodniks had completely misunderstood it, Struve says. In evidence, he puts forward Mikhailovsky's claim that Marx's theory is only an explanation of the genesis of the capitalist system. Mikhailovsky, Lenin says, has never discussed Marx's method in relation to the subjective method in sociology, and whilst he has declared his agreement with Marx's economics has not explained how this tallies with the Narodniks adoption of Proudhonist method in practice.
Mikhailovsky adopts the Proudhonist principle of seeking to refashion commodity production in line with his ideal of justice, now, as in line with modern science and morals.
“Mr. Mikhailovsky has always protested vigorously against identifying the method of social sciences with that of the natural sciences, so why did he not object to Marx’s statement that Proudhon’s method is as absurd as would be that of a chemist who wanted to transform metabolism in accordance with the laws of “affinity” instead of studying the “real laws of metabolism”? Why did he not object to Marx’s view that the social process is a “process of natural history”? It cannot be explained by non-acquaintance with the literature; the explanation evidently lies in an utter failure or refusal to understand. Mr. Struve, it seems to me, is the first in our literature to have pointed this out—and that is greatly to his credit.” (p 417-8)
If we examine the ideas of the “anti-capitalists”, amongst the social-democrats, it has similar characteristics. It wants to reshape modern monopoly capitalism along more moral lines, many of which are themselves thoroughly reactionary. It focuses its attention on large profits (rather than examining how with workers' control of this socialised capital these large profits would be a boon to additional capital accumulation), as well as the way shareholders avoid taxes, and so on (rather than challenging the control those shareholders exercise over capital they do not own, as well as the excessive interest and other remuneration they, and the executives they appoint, usurp. They talk about fair trade and fair competition, rather than recognising that monopoly is a natural and progressive part of capitalist development. The clearing away of the plethora of small capitalists, and formation of socialised capital in the form of such monopolies is part of capital's historic mission in preparing the ground for Socialism.
The same is true of the “anti-imperialists” who seek to oppose or limit the investment of multinational capital, because they see in it only “unequal exchange” and “super exploitation”, and “the development of underdevelopment”, thereby failing to see that this investment is the fastest route to industrialisation and development, to the development of the working-class, and thereby to Socialism. In place of the actual material facts, and the practical means of moving towards Socialism, they instead put forward simply pious wishes, and ideals of socialism to be achieved, by some third way, whilst somehow simultaneously wishing away all of the necessary intervening stages of capitalist development.
No comments:
Post a Comment