The Narodnik adopts the position of the small producer, who sees their plight relative to the merchant capitalist who buys up their output on the cheap, and relative to the big capitalists who they see as being favoured by the state.
“in a word, his misfortunes are due to the specific features of distribution, to mistakes in policy, etc.” (p 443)
In opposition to this view, its not clear what perspective Struve adopts. Big capital looks down on the small capitalist and handicraftsman; it is proud of the role it plays in raising the level of productivity. But, the other viewpoint is that of the industrial worker who has no reason to support the viewpoint of either of the small or big capitalist. The industrial worker can appreciate the progressive nature of the development that big capital brings with it, whilst recognising that it only does this the better to exploit their labour. Its not clear where Struve's position lies, because he talks about the
““factor of production” side by side with the word “economy” (see p. 171: the Narodniks “ignore the factor of production to a degree that is tantamount to denying the existence of any system of economy”), and especially since, by comparing “irrational” with “rational” production, the author sometimes obscures the relationship between the small producer and the producer who has lost the means of production altogether. It is perfectly true that from the objective point of view the author’s exposition is no less correct on account of this and that it is easy for anyone who understands the antagonism inherent in the capitalist system to picture the situation from the angle of the latter relationship. But, as it is well known that the Russian Narodnik gentlemen do not understand this, it is desirable in controversy with them to be more definite and thorough and to resort to the fewest possible general and abstract postulates.” (p 443)
The Narodniks, like the Sismondists and “anti-capitalists” think that to criticise capitalism it is sufficient to point to the existence of exploitation, and the interaction of this exploitation with politics. The Marxist, however, believes that it is necessary to show why this exploitation is a consequence of particular relations of production. If the analysis remains purely at the level of the identification of exploitation, this can be explained subjectively. Its then a question of greedy bosses exploiting workers, for example. The answer to that may be the reformist solution of Economism, for example, to redistribute the profits of the capitalist in benefits to workers, to introduce a basic minimum income, or to nationalise capital so that a state not prone to such “greed” may not engage in such exploitation. Or it can be solved in the Economistic fashion of the syndicalists, by better industrial organisation and “more militancy” by workers, who confront the greedy bosses with their own demands for higher wages.
Marxists reject those analyses and solutions precisely because Marxists locate the source of the exploitation as arising in the objective relations of production, and have nothing to do with whether the employer is a vicious, greedy bloodsucker, or a liberal-mined philanthropist. And, for the same reason, it does not matter whether the capital is owned by a private capitalist or by the capitalist state, or indeed by workers themselves. Its not the nature of the owner of the capital that is determinant, but the fact that it is capital, the owner being merely its personification.
“The Narodnik thinks that to criticise capitalism it is sufficient to indicate the existence of exploitation, the interaction between exploitation and politics, etc. The Marxist thinks it necessary to explain and also to link together the phenomena of exploitation as a system of certain relations in production, as a special social-economic formation, the laws of the functioning and development of which have to be studied objectively. The Narodnik thinks it sufficient, in criticising capitalism, to condemn it from the angle of his ideals, from the angle of “modern science and modern moral ideas.” The Marxist thinks it necessary to trace in detail the classes that are formed in capitalist society, he considers valid only criticism made from the viewpoint of a definite class, criticism that is based on the precise formulation of the social process actually taking place and not on the ethical judgement of the “individual.”” (p 444)
Taking this as the starting point, Lenin says, a critique of the economic content of Narodism should have set the following objectives. First, it should show that the “people's Industry”, beloved by the Narodniks, was capitalist. It was necessary to show that, compared to large-scale capitalism, in Russia, that it was just a question of a more developed form of capital to a less developed form of capital.
“An analysis of the economic side should, of course, be supplemented by an analysis of the social, juridical, political, and ideological superstructures. The failure to understand the connection between capitalism and “people’s production” gave rise among the Narodniks to the idea that the peasant Reform, state power, the intelligentsia, etc., were non-class in character. A materialist analysis, which reduces all these phenomena to the class struggle, must show concretely that our Russian post-Reform “social progress” has only been the result of capitalist “economic progress.”” (Note *, p 444)
Such an analysis should show that the separation of the producer from the means of production is not explicable by politics, by distributive relations, or subjective motivations, but only by the productive relations created by the economy of commodity production and exchange, “by the formation of classes with antagonistic interests which is characteristic of capitalist society; that the reality (small production) which the Narodniks want to raise to a higher level, bypassing capitalism, already contains capitalism with its antagonism of classes and clashes between them—only the antagonism is in its worst form, a form which hampers the independent activity of the producer; and that by ignoring the social antagonisms which have already arisen and by dreaming about “different paths for the fatherland,” the Narodniks become utopian reactionaries, because large-scale capitalism only develops, purges and clarifies the content of these antagonisms, which exist all over Russia.” (p 444-5)
No comments:
Post a Comment