VI
In this final section, Lenin briefly examines some comments made by Struve in relation to Narodnik economic policies. These comments make clear that Struve is talking about his attitude to polices within the context of a continued capitalist development, and, on that basis, he discusses polices in terms of their rationality, progressiveness and intelligence. He compares the liberal economic policies with those of the Narodniks.
“The author evidently wanted to contrast two policies that keep to the existing relations—and in this sense he quite rightly pointed out that a policy is “intelligent” if it develops and does not retard capitalism, and it is “intelligent” not because it serves the bourgeoisie by increasingly subordinating the producer to them [the way in which various “simpletons” and “acrobats” try to explain it], but because, by accentuating and refining capitalist relations, it brings clarity to the mind of the one on whom alone change depends, and gives him a free hand.” (p 501)
But, because Struve approaches matters abstractly on the basis of objectivism, he fails to identify the fact that the policies proposed by the liberals on the one hand, and the Narodniks on the other, cannot be considered from the perspective of rationality or intelligence, but only from the perspective that each represent the different class interests. The liberals put forward the interests of the bourgeoisie, of big capital, whereas the Narodniks put forward the interests of the petty-bourgeoisie. They are both intelligent and rational from the perspective of these different classes.
“In this way he would have used the Russian example to show the connection between social ideas and economic development, something he tried to prove in the first chapters and that can only be fully established by a materialist analysis of Russian data. In this way he would have shown, secondly, how naive the Narodniks are when they combat bourgeois theories in their publications, and do so as though these theories are merely mistaken reasoning, and do not represent the interests of a powerful class which it is foolish to admonish, and which can only be “convinced” by the imposing force of another class. In this way he would have shown, thirdly, which class actually determines “urgent needs” and “progress” in this country, and how ridiculous the Narodniks are when they argue about which “path” “to choose.”” (p 502)
Talk about potential future paths of development simply acts as a means of the Narodniks promoting policies in the interests of the petty-bourgeoisie – in the same way that Brexit as an alternative path represents the interest of the petty-bourgeoisie. Those policies do not lead to a different future, i.e. a non-capitalist path of development, but only to a capitalist development geared to the interests of the petty-bourgeoisie rather than big capital. This is the same in relation to Brexit, or to the “anti-imperialists” proposals in relation to developing economies. It is a proposal for a more backward form of capitalist development, and, thereby, reactionary.
“That is why the Narodnik, in matters of theory, is just as much a Janus, looking with one face to the past and the other to the future, as in real life the small producer is, who looks with one face to the past, wishing to strengthen his small farm without knowing or wishing to know anything about the general economic system and about the need to reckon with the class that controls it—and with the other face to the future, adopting a hostile attitude to the capitalism that is ruining him.” (p 503)
No comments:
Post a Comment