Lenin now turns to a critique of Struve's position. Struve writes that Marx and Engels' theory has not been subject to a thorough philosophical justification. What he means by this is not clear. From a Marxist standpoint, philosophy has no right to its own independent existence. All aspects of philosophy are divisible into the different branches of science itself, and this is the only consistent position for a materialist to hold. A philosophical proof of the theory, therefore, comes down to a scientific proof that would have to begin with the laws of physics in relation to the assumptions adopted regarding the development of the forces of production, etc.; it would have to take in biology in relation to the assumptions made in relation to human reproduction, and, thereby, the reproduction of labour-power; even at the level of the development of ideas, and nature of human behaviour, it would have to utilise psychology and psychiatry. But, these too have demonstrated that the psyche cannot be understood subjectively, from the standpoint of the individual, but only from the standpoint of the individual's formation and interaction with wider social forces.
Struve says that the theory should be tested against other applications. He admits that,
“materialism will always be entitled to credit for having provided a profoundly scientific and truly philosophical (author’s italics) interpretation of a number (N.B.) of vastly important historical facts” (p 418)
And, of course, he is right that the theory should be used in application to review other historical facts. In so doing, as with any other scientific theory, it will only be enriched and developed as a result of such wider application, and explanation of the real world. Especially, Lenin says, an application of the theory to analyse Russian development is required.
Lenin then turns to an amendment by Struve to the theory in relation to the state. Some years ago, I had a discussion, here, with Mike McNair of the CPGB, in which he put forward a similar argument to Struve in relation to the state.
“The subject is the state. Denying the state, “Marx and his followers ... went ... too far in their criticism of the modern state” and were guilty of “one-sidedness.” “The state,” Mr. Struve says, correcting this extravagance, “is first of all the organisation of order; it is, however, the organisation of rule (class rule) in a society in which the subordination of certain groups to others is determined by its economic structure” (53). Tribal life, in the author’s opinion, knew the state; and it will remain even after classes are abolished, for the criterion of the state is coercive power.” (p 419)
Today's moral socialists also arrive at a similar view of the state as being one in which it represents “the organisation of order”. That is a necessary consequence of the ideas of liberal interventionism, by which the role of the capitalist state, in organising such military intervention is seen only in terms of the imposition of such order, and, those that started down that route, end up, as with the AWL, who now oppose calls for defunding the police, and instead defend the capitalist police on this same basis as representing merely the “organisation of order”.
No comments:
Post a Comment