““Our Narodnik literature,” he says, “seized upon the contrast between national wealth and the well-being of the people, social progress and progress in distribution” (131).
Narodism did not “seize upon” this contrast, but merely stated the fact that in post-Reform Russia the same contradiction was to be observed between progress, culture, wealth and—the separation of the producer from the means of production, the diminution of the producer’s share in the product of the people’s labour, and the growth of poverty and unemployment—as that which had led to this contrast being made in the West, too.” (p 439-40)
The consequence, according to Struve, is that the Narodniks come down on the side of the people. They saw the negative aspects of the capitalist development in the West, and the advantages of “people's industry”, the artel and so on, as it appeared in the Russian village, and so proposed this as an alternative model of development.
“This argument clearly reveals the flaws in Mr. Struve’s thesis. Narodism is depicted as a “humane” theory which “seized upon” the contrast between national wealth and the poverty of the people and “settled the problem” in favour of distribution, because the “experience of the West” “held out no promise” for the well-being of the people. And the author begins to argue against this “settlement” of the problem, forgetting that he is only arguing against the idealist and, moreover, naïve daydreams that are the cloak of Narodism, and not against its content, forgetting that he is committing a serious error by presenting the question in the professorial manner usually adopted by the Narodniks.” (p 440)
In other words, it is presented abstractly as though what is being discussed is two possible logical models of development, each possible in real life, and between which it is only necessary to decide which is superior, and which, therefore, society should be advised to choose. It completely misses out the fact that “society” is not some homogeneous, abstract whole that can be moved in this direction or that, based upon the revelations of this abstract logic, the manifestation of unversalisable moral principles, but is comprised of antagonistic classes, each with their own class interests, each with its own logic, its own set of moral principles, universalisable only within the universe of that class. It omits the material factor of the class struggle.
“As we have already stated, the content of Narodism reflects the viewpoint and the interests of the Russian small producer. The “humanity and love for the people” expressed in the theory derive from the downtrodden condition of our small producer, who has suffered severely both from the “old-nobility” system and traditions, and from the oppression of big capital.” (p 440)
In fact, Lenin could also have pointed, here, to the reason for the Narodniks hostility to the Marxists as advocates of the industrial working-class. Although the Narodniks presented themselves as advocates of the ordinary working people, the working-people they meant were these independent small producers, the equivalent of today's “white van man”. And, for these small producers, the organised industrial proletariat, able to use its organisation to win higher wages, is as much an enemy as is big capital. The petty-bourgeoisie lack the leverage to do that, and as employers of labour themselves, these higher wages squeeze their profits.
That is why the heterogeneous rabble of the petty-bourgeoisie has always been the source of the footsoldiers of reaction. The Bonapartists and fascists have always been able to mobilise it, pointing it at big capital in one direction, and at organised labour in the other, and, because this petty-bourgeois rabble has no homogeneity of class interest within it, it can only be organised from above by some charismatic leader that provides it with the direction it lacks itself as a class. But, the fascists and Bonapartists that mobilise it, for their ends, of course, have no intention of actually carrying through any of the anti-capitalist measures the petty-bourgeoisie seek, which are, in fact, only measures against big capital.
No comments:
Post a Comment